I agree with this, too. I must admit I am not even sure what the problem is with referring to the Overview in a general context of OWL 2... Ivan Ian Horrocks wrote: > 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. > > Ian > > > 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 >> > > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 08:00:25 UTC