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

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

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:38:25 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BD9A2@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.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.


Otherwise, in the future we would collect different namespaces for OWL, OWL
2, OWL 2.01 (scnr ;-)), and so on. This wouldn't scale well, and would lead
to user confusion, I suppose.


>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
>> I've discussed these with a couple of colleagues. Here are some
>> 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 12:39:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 18 April 2008 12:39:04 GMT