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

Re: ISSUE-106 (namespace): RAISED: reuse OWL 1.0 namespace? owl11 poor prefix choice

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:04:08 +0000
Message-Id: <9BD7CF83-F4F6-4EF7-A5A6-3A60145B589E@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On Mar 28, 2008, at 3:38 PM, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> ISSUE-106 (namespace): RAISED: reuse OWL 1.0 namespace? owl11 poor  
> prefix choice
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>
> Raised by: Jeremy Carroll
> On product:
>
> An HP reviewer suggests that it causes practical difficulty to have  
> new properties and classes in a new namespace, and sees no real  
> loss in adding the new stuff to the old namespace.

+10000000000.

I would like to use Ye Olden Owle namespace for the XML syntax as  
well. These would be similar to rdf:about in RDF/XML.

The fewer namespaces the better. I *always* find the boilerplate  
unnecessarily complicated and a source of errors. I also often  
encounter other people making errors (I often correct owl:subClassOf  
for people).

> He also notes that owl11 as a prefix is an invitation to typos.


Indeed.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2008 17:04:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 29 March 2008 17:04:04 GMT