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

Re: OWL-S version 1.1 now available

From: Ian Dickinson <ian.dickinson@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:31:26 +0000
Message-ID: <419F1CFE.5080909@hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org

Hi Bijan,
> Thanks for the read and comments!
You're welcome.

>>  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 guess my comment was founded on the fact that *everyone* who looks at 
rdf:List and wants one in their ontology has the same problem.  It's 
certainly something that comes up fairly frequently on the Jena forum. 
So owl-s is not alone in wanting to "shadow" rdf lists, and therefore it 
seemed to me that it would be better to be a little more self-contained.

> I'm not deeply attached to it by any means 
Nor am I to the original comment :-)  Recognising its trivial nature, I 
hesitated whether to even make the suggestion in the first place.

>But, I think it's as graceful, acutally rather 
> more so, than your proposed alternative (*especially* generic).
:-)  I usually try to make my namespace prefixes from the, er, namespace 
they represent.  Since generic was a part of the namespace it seemed 
worth a throwaway suggestion.  *I* wouldn't use generic as a namespace 
prefix in my RDF documents either, as it happens!

Ian
Received on Saturday, 20 November 2004 10:32:03 GMT

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