- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:46:39 -0400
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> > 2. owl2-syntax Structural Specification and
> > Functional-Style Syntax
> >
> > Seems quite misleading to me. I propose "owl2-structures",
> > but I could live with owl2-ssfs or owl2-ssafss.
>
> I am also not perfectly happy with "owl2-syntax", but can well live with
> it, since
>
> (a) the document /is/ all about the specific syntax of OWL 2;
>
> (b) given the RDF Mapping document it is pretty clear
> that the document isn't about RDF syntax;
>
> (c) I do not see really good alternatives.
>
> I would consider it worse to use "owl2-specification", as we currently
> do in our references:
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/References/ref-owl-2-specification>
>
> For me, the specification of OWL 2 is the whole suite of the documents,
> or at least the technical/normative part.
Yeah, I'm unhappy every time I read "OWL 2 SPECIFICATION" as a
reference. I'm sure it makes sense to someone, but not me.
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 12:46:45 UTC