- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:49:54 -0800
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Thinking further about OWL 1.1 support, I am wondering whether we should try to introduce conventions that make it easier for tools to distinguish OWL 1.1 files from OWL 1.0 files. This is for example necessary to adjust user interfaces (menu entries etc) to support the additional constructs. This leads me to two questions. 1) Do we assume that the additional OWL 1.1 vocabulary (such as owl:SelfRestriction ;) ) will be added to the OWL meta vocabulary [1]? Then the usual owl: prefix would be used, giving OWL files a more consistent look. However, I am not sure whether it is a recommended practice to change a namespace that is now so widely deployed. An alternative would be to use a different namespace for the new 1.1 URIs - this could help distinguish OWL 1.1 documents as well, but would also mean that something like an owl11: prefix would be required. 2) Since OWL 1.1 is evolving and URIs and semantics of its constructs may change, would it make sense to annotate documents with something like an owl:versionInfo = "OWL 1.1 (27-11-2006)" in the owl:Ontology? Holger [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl
Received on Monday, 22 January 2007 23:50:02 UTC