- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:04:08 +0000
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 28, 2008, at 3:38 PM, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > ISSUE-106 (namespace): RAISED: reuse OWL 1.0 namespace? owl11 poor > prefix choice > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ > > Raised by: Jeremy Carroll > On product: > > An HP reviewer suggests that it causes practical difficulty to have > new properties and classes in a new namespace, and sees no real > loss in adding the new stuff to the old namespace. +10000000000. I would like to use Ye Olden Owle namespace for the XML syntax as well. These would be similar to rdf:about in RDF/XML. The fewer namespaces the better. I *always* find the boilerplate unnecessarily complicated and a source of errors. I also often encounter other people making errors (I often correct owl:subClassOf for people). > He also notes that owl11 as a prefix is an invitation to typos. Indeed. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2008 17:04:01 UTC