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

Syntactic extensibility

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:50:26 +0100
Message-Id: <48CD1B9E-CF34-4884-B678-77CF3C793AEF@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

In <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#URIs_and_Namespaces> we read:

"""URIs from the rdf, rdfs, xsd, and owl namespaces constitute the  
reserved vocabulary of OWL 2. As described in the following sections,  
the URIs from the reserved vocabulary that are listed in Table 2 have  
special treatment in OWL 2. All other URIs from the reserved  
vocabulary constitute the disallowed vocabulary of OWL 2 and are not  
to be used in OWL 2 ontologies."""

First, "are not"? Is that a MUST? Is there any hint of at least  
parser behavior? (e.g., throw an error?)

Second, I think it would be nice if people proposing extensions could  
use the OWL namespace at least (esp. to avoid the using OWL, then  
having an OWL11, then back to OWL silliness). How about if we allowed  
local names with a leading x- to be used for experimental extensions.  
Parsers could throw a specific warning which would indicate that they  
didn't understand this extension (which would distinguish it from  
ordinary typos).

Received on Monday, 8 September 2008 17:47:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC