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

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:57:10 -0400 (EDT)
• To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20080331.185710.83249327.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Subject: ISSUE-106 (namespace): RAISED: reuse OWL 1.0 namespace? owl11 poor prefix choice
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:38:20 +0000 (GMT)

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

I would be very happy to have the various OWL namespaces collapsed.  The WG
might not want to do so, however, until issues related to the number of
active entries in the namespace are resolved.

peter

Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 23:04:31 UTC