Re: Syntactic extensibility

> In <> 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).

I think this goes against WebArch.  Folks supplying an extension should
provide useful material to folks dereferencing the URIs used in the
extenion, but they can't with this approach (unless W3C were willing to
be a registry of these x- extensions).

     -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 14:31:40 UTC