- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:50:26 +0100
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
In <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#URIs_and_Namespaces> we read: """URIs from the rdf, rdfs, xsd, and owl namespaces constitute the reserved vocabulary of OWL 2. As described in the following sections, the URIs from the reserved vocabulary that are listed in Table 2 have special treatment in OWL 2. All other URIs from the reserved vocabulary constitute the disallowed vocabulary of OWL 2 and are not to be used in OWL 2 ontologies.""" First, "are not"? Is that a MUST? Is there any hint of at least parser behavior? (e.g., throw an error?) Second, I think it would be nice if people proposing extensions could use the OWL namespace at least (esp. to avoid the using OWL, then having an OWL11, then back to OWL silliness). How about if we allowed local names with a leading x- to be used for experimental extensions. Parsers could throw a specific warning which would indicate that they didn't understand this extension (which would distinguish it from ordinary typos). Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 8 September 2008 17:47:58 UTC