- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:18:24 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 9 Sep 2008, at 15:29, Sandro Hawke wrote: [snip] > I think this goes against WebArch. Even if so...so? :) > 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). Wiki page? Let's consider the alternative...we have URIs coined by extension writers that....tools can't specially recognize but people can look up. But why would they look them up if they didn't have their attention drawn to them some way? (Consider the baleful harm of they way SWRL has worked, with implementors thinking they needed to import the SWRL ontologies, etc. etc.) As a user, I'd rather get the warning, and if I did look it up, find out that it was an extension, then google for the extension or ask on public-owl-dev. (I think of search engines and mailing lists as part of how the web works :)) I believe, also, that RDF only requires a warning if you add terms to the rdf namespace...so people *can* do this already, but we have no canonical way of indicating what's a random extension and what's a sanctioned extension. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 15:15:53 UTC