W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106: namespace for owl2 rdf/xml

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080418.075443.191701702.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

OK, then let's at least try to move forward on ISSUE-106:

PROPOSED:  Resolve ISSUE-106 by making the owl2 namespace the same as
	   the owl namespace. 


From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106 and ISSUE-109: namespaces for owl2 rdf/xml and xml/owl
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:52:15 +0100

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > I propose to resolve ISSUE-106 and ISSUE-109 by making the owl2 and
> > owl2xml namespaces be the same as the owl namespace.
> > Instead of the following namespaces
> > owl 	      http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
> > owl2 	      http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2#
> > owl2xml       http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2-xml#
> > the situation would be
> > owl 	      http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
> > owl2 	      http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
> > owl2xml       http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
> > Actually there would then be no need for separate namespace prefixes.
> I've discussed these with a couple of colleagues. Here are some thoughts:
> 1) owl & owl2 the same is good.
> 2) we should state a policy for management of owl namespace in our
> documents; and as an errata in the old document too. 
> e.g. the meaning of terms in the owl namespace will not change, but
> new terms may be added. (This would mean that if the meaning of say
> owl:onProperty is changed in a new design then we would change the
> spelling of onProperty and use a new name for the new meaning). 
> 3) it would be a mistake to combine the owl namespace and the owl2xml
> namespace. 
> Rationale for 3:
> a) potential confusion between owl/xml and rdf/xml
> b) an RDF/XML doc using the single node construction might appear to
> be in the owl/xml namespace, which would license the GRDDL transform
> for owl/xml 
> c) the triple view and the functional syntax view of an ontology are
> sufficiently different to merit different namespaces 

> Jeremy
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 11:58:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC