W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2004

Re: OWL-S version 1.1 now available

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:59:16 +0900
Message-Id: <05694518-3A87-11D9-A011-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
To: Ian Dickinson <ian.dickinson@hp.com>

Thanks for the read and comments!

I'll just respond to this one.
On Nov 20, 2004, at 8:04 AM, Ian Dickinson wrote:
[snip]
> * In Appendix B, the use of "shadow-rdf" is clumsy, and sounds a bit 
> like grudgingly giving way on an issue you didn't really want to!

I certainly never heard it that way, and it wasn't what I intended. One 
thing it clearly signals (which thenamespace URI doesn't) is that it 
*is* a shadow vocabulary. That is, it is intended, at least initially, 
to provide the very same interface as the rdf Collection vocabulary, 
but in a DL legal way.

>  The namespace is .../generic/ObjectList.owl, so perhaps objList: or 
> generic: would be more graceful namespace prefixes?

Er..generic...definitly not :) objList perhaps, but I also intended it 
to read fairly closely with the ormal rdf prefix, e.g., rdf:List, 
shadow-rdf:List (i.e., it's a sort of rdf:List-a-like).

I'm not deeply attached to it by any means (or I would have objected to 
the namespace change). But, I think it's as graceful, acutally rather 
more so, than your proposed alternative (*especially* generic).

Other people's tastes may differ.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 23:59:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:10:58 GMT