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 09:03:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080418.090308.158180299.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106: namespace for owl2 rdf/xml
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:46:06 +0100

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > 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. peter
> Given that this would be a decision that the OWL namespace is mutable,
> we should document in what ways it is mutable, as specified by the TAG:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html
> i.e.
> >> 2) we should state a policy for management of owl namespace in our
> >> documents; and as an errata in the old document too. 
> Jeremy

Under this reasoning we SHOULD do this in our documents even if we
decide to have a different namespace.

It also seems to me that restrictions of the sort that could be
envisioned here are counter to the Semantic Web principle that anyone
can say anything about anything.  Perhaps then what is needed is
something like:

    The owl namespace is managed under the usual Semantic Web rules.

I don't know why we should go back to the OWL 1 documents, however, as I
don't feel that it is in our work package to touch them.  In any case,
the default situation seems to be fine, namely:

	As a general rule, resources on the web can and do change. In
	the absence of an explicit statement, one cannot infer that a
	namespace is immutable.

Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 13:07:00 UTC

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