- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:29:34 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 1 Jun 2009, at 13:46, Sandro Hawke wrote: > >>> 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. I agree that it is far from optimal. But what is the alternative? I'm not sure that it is necessary or sensible for this to be consistent with the short form document URL. I would be quite happy to see these kinds of reference replaced with something *much* shorter and more cryptic (e.g., [SS&FS]) -- what is being referenced is usually pretty obvious from the context in any case. Ian > > -- Sandro > >
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 16:30:08 UTC