W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: reply to a POWDER Group request

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:11:43 +0100
Message-Id: <7EA378AD-344A-456F-A5F2-DB5778B48FC2@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
I agree with this. I believe that having a citable entry point with  
the whole WG as authors/editors was one of the reasons we decided to  
make Overview be a (rec track) document rather than a web page.

The alternative is to have random and/or inappropriate citing of OWL  
2 documents. No doubt it isn't possible to completely avoid this, but  
we can at least try.


On 14 Apr 2009, at 01:01, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>> On 13 Apr 2009, at 21:11, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> * The cited reference "[OWL2]" points to the Primer. I believe the
>>> Document Overview is the best document to generically refer to  
>>> OWL 2.
>> [snip]
>> Really? That seems unfortunate.
>> Or is that a design goal for Overview?
> FWIW, I understood it to be, and said and heard words to that  
> effect at
> the meeting where we approved the concept (2009-02-23), but alas, I
> don't see them recorded in the minutes.
> That was, in my mind, the main reason to go out of our way to not have
> editors named, since whoever is named on that document would be widely
> cited for "OWL 2".  Of course when people have reason to cite a
> particular document, they will, but when the just need a pointer to  
> all
> of OWL 2, I would expect/assume/hope they would use Overview.
>       -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 21:31:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC