- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:22:31 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi Sandro, Thanks for your efforts on this. The inserted-note approach may not be perfect, but it is simple and does the job. Regards, Ian On 20 Oct 2009, at 21:16, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > When people visit the OWL 1 recommendations like > > Overview > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ > > Semantics and Abstract Syntax > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/ > > etc > > ... perhaps we'd like them be told, somehow, that OWL 2 exists. The > best plan I've heard is to insert a note in those 2004 Recommendations > telling people about the 2009 ones. It would look something like this > mockup I made: > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/draft/owl-features-revised.html > > Other options include: > > - do nothing; people can find OWL 2 on their own > > - make the "latest version" URLs (which I used above) point instead > to something else. owl-features could point to owl2-overview, > and > owl2-overview could have TWO "Previous Version" URLS, one for the > OWL 1 Recommendation, one for the OWL 2 Proposed Recommendation. > The big problem with this is that for some documents, it's not > clear what they would be updated to point to, since some OWL 1 > documents (like owl-semantics) are not replaced by exactly one > document in OWL 2, or are not replaced at all (webont-req). > Also, > this URL cleverness can get pretty confusing. > > The people I've talked to, after some thought, seem to favor the > inserted-note approach. It's unusual for W3C, but it has been done > before, and I think we can probably do it this time. > > If anyone in the WG has strong opinions on this, please speak up now. > > -- Sandro > > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 20:23:01 UTC