- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:38:25 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BD9A2@judith.fzi.de>
>OK, then let's at least try to move forward on ISSUE-106: > >PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-106 by making the owl2 namespace the same as > the owl namespace. > >peter +1. Otherwise, in the future we would collect different namespaces for OWL, OWL 2, OWL 2.01 (scnr ;-)), and so on. This wouldn't scale well, and would lead to user confusion, I suppose. Cheers, Michael > > > >From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> >Subject: Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106 and ISSUE-109: namespaces for >owl2 rdf/xml and xml/owl >Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:52:15 +0100 > >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> > I propose to resolve ISSUE-106 and ISSUE-109 by making the owl2 and >> > owl2xml namespaces be the same as the owl namespace. >> > Instead of the following namespaces >> > owl http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# >> > owl2 http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2# >> > owl2xml http://www.w3.org/2006/12/owl2-xml# >> > the situation would be >> > owl http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# >> > owl2 http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# >> > owl2xml http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# >> > Actually there would then be no need for separate namespace >prefixes. >> >> >> I've discussed these with a couple of colleagues. Here are some >thoughts: >> >> 1) owl & owl2 the same is good. >> >> 2) we should state a policy for management of owl namespace in our >> documents; and as an errata in the old document too. >> >> e.g. the meaning of terms in the owl namespace will not change, but >> new terms may be added. (This would mean that if the meaning of say >> owl:onProperty is changed in a new design then we would change the >> spelling of onProperty and use a new name for the new meaning). >> >> 3) it would be a mistake to combine the owl namespace and the owl2xml >> namespace. >> >> Rationale for 3: >> a) potential confusion between owl/xml and rdf/xml >> b) an RDF/XML doc using the single node construction might appear to >> be in the owl/xml namespace, which would license the GRDDL transform >> for owl/xml >> c) the triple view and the functional syntax view of an ontology are >> sufficiently different to merit different namespaces > >> Jeremy
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 12:39:03 UTC