What namespace and schema-location do we want? [perhaps this should be an ISSUE] The OWL 1.1 submission has an EXAMPLE which used: namespace "http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl11-xml" schema location "http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl11-xml/owl1.1.xsd" Meanwhile, it said the schema was "available from": schema location "http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-owl11-xml_syntax-20061219/schema/owl1.1.xsd" In the actual content of that schema, the following namespace was used: namespace: "http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl11-xml#" The W3C policy document here is: http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri Are either of those namespaces, "http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl11-xml#" "http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl11-xml" used by implementors? Which ones? Are we changing the schema? Should we change the namespace, or pick one of those? If we're going to change, I suggest (without strong feelings) we use: namespace "http://www.w3.org/ns/owl11xml" (The trailing "#" makes sense in the RDF world, but not for a pure XML namespace, IMHO.) Similarly, do people use some particular schema location? I don't think we can update the SUBM one. I notice some folk, like WSDL thinking a lot about version management... http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl/ and perhaps we should just imitate the. I haven't thought through the issues there yet. Some other examples from the past year: http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy http://www.w3.org/ns/SMIL http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc http://www.w3.org/ns/sawsdl http://www.w3.org/ns/media-access-event http://www.w3.org/ns/xbl -- SandroReceived on Monday, 24 March 2008 17:07:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 March 2008 17:07:14 GMT