- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:49:37 +0200
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi, Not a really strong opinion, but the inserted note has my preference. As Ian says, it does the job. Doing nothing isn't really an option as people will not find the OWL 2 version on their own (cf. the old and new RDF spec). The last one is problematic since pages and documents referring to OWL 1 will suddenly point to OWL 2. Best, Rinke On 20 okt 2009, at 22:22, Ian Horrocks wrote: > 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 >> >> >> > > --- Dr Rinke Hoekstra AI Department | Leibniz Center for Law Faculty of Sciences | Faculty of Law Vrije Universiteit | Universiteit van Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1081a | Kloveniersburgwal 48 1081 HV Amsterdam | 1012 CX Amsterdam +31-(0)20-5987752 | +31-(0)20-5253499 hoekstra@few.vu.nl | hoekstra@uva.nl Homepage: http://www.few.vu.nl/~hoekstra
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 20:50:09 UTC