Re: Syntax Changes (domain etc. in owl NS)

On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 09:38, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
> Raphael and I would like to propose the following changes to the
> concrete syntax. This is based on our implementation experience over
> the last couple of weeks.

[...]

> 2) Move everything into the owl namespace.

Been there, discussed that, no thanks.

5.20 Should OWL provide synonyms for RDF and RDFS objects?
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.20-should-OWL-provide-synonyms-for-RDF-and-RDFS-objects

I don't see any new information that would merit reopening
this decision.

>  Thus rather than using
>    rdf:type, rdfs:domain, rdfs:range etc., we have owl:type, owl:domain
>    etc. This would have two benefits:
> 
>    a) Reduce user confusion as to which namespace to use. Examples in
>    the past have shown that users typically get confused about whether
>    they should use, for example rdf:type or rdfs:type or
>    owl:type.
> 
>    b) This would also be of benefit when processing or parsing OWL
>    ontologies as the processor can make assumptions about the type of
>    the object of, for example owl:domain (which must be some
>    owl:Class).
> 
>    If the OWL.owl schema specification contains the relevant
>    assertions. e.g.
> 
>    owl:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type
> 
>    then any ontology written using the owl vocabulary would still be
>    accessible to an RDF/RDFS processor.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 	Sean
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/