hash in ontology URI (was RE: [VM] Telecon on Thu Jan 05, 14:00 UTC)

Hi Ralph,

I hate having to make this point but ...

In recipes 1 and 3 you've added a trailing hash to the ontology URI.

E.g. the doc now says: 

---
For ontology with URI

http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1#
---

... whereas before it said:

---
For ontology with URI

http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1
---

This doesn't fit with what gets used in most ontologies with a hash namespace, which is something like ...

<rdf:RDF xmlns:blah>

  <owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
    <dc:title>My favourite ontology</dc:title>
    <dc:description>It's oh so nice.</dc:description>
  </owl:Ontology>

  <owl:Class rdf:ID="Foo">
  </owl:Class>

</rdf:RDF>

This usage indicates that the URI of the ontology is the URI base for the given XML document.  To fit with your change, you'd have to do e.g. 

<rdf:RDF xmlns:blah>

  <owl:Ontology rdf:about="#">
    <dc:title>My favourite ontology</dc:title>
    <dc:description>It's oh so nice.</dc:description>
  </owl:Ontology>

  <owl:Class rdf:ID="Foo">
  </owl:Class>

</rdf:RDF>

I've never seen anyone do that.  

Was there any definitive decision on what consitutes the ontology URI made in OWL or RDF WGs?

Cheers,

Al.







> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ralph R. Swick
> Sent: 05 January 2006 15:58
> To: Thomas Baker
> Cc: SW Best Practices
> Subject: Re: [VM] Telecon on Thu Jan 05, 14:00 UTC
> 
> 
> 
> At 06:35 PM 1/4/2006 +0100, Thomas Baker wrote:
> 
> >Vocabulary Management telecon, Thu, Jan 05, 14:00 UTC (15:00 Berlin)
> 
> apologies; I did have this in my calendar but when my meeting in
> the hour just prior was cancelled at the last moment I then totally
> forgot about the special VMTF telecon following.
> 
> >1. Editor's Draft "HTTP configuration cookbook" [1]
> >
> >   The draft has been reviewed by David Booth [2] and Andreas
> >   Harth [3].  We should discuss two issues:
> >
> >   -- How should the draft be revised in light of the reviews?
> 
> Alistair and I had talked at our special telecon on 15 December
> (we forgot to take and post any notes) and Alistair left me the write
> token to add some introductory prose.
> 
> I've written the bulk of what I'd intended to write in
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2005-11-18/
> $Id: Overview.html,v 1.12 2005/12/31 02:56:01 swick Exp $
> 
> Some of David Booth's comments were addressed in this added
> material, though I did not make any particular effort to do so.
> 
> >   -- Do we still want to go for "note" status [4] within
> >      the charter period for the BPD working group, and is there
> >      still time to do so?
> 
> I say 'yes' to both.
> 
> >      The most recent VM telecon was held on Dec 6 [5,
> >      and attached below], and this question was discussed
> >      in the Dec 12 BPD telecon [6].  Note that an interim
> >      telecon scheduled for Thursday, 15 December [7], did
> >      not take place.
> 
> well, it did in a partial way.  Alistair and I went over our near-term
> thoughts for 20 minutes and then adjourned.
> 
> One of the thoughts we batted-around a bit was on how much
> design rationale to include in the document.  Alistair noted, by
> way of example, his comment on the use of conditional redirects
> rather than MultiViews [1].  He and I were in agreement that we
> would like to provide a path for the interested reader to find such
> rationale but not include it in the main body of the document.
> 
> Alistair though it might go into an appendix.  I thought we might
> be able to make a separate list of citations to messages like [1]
> and cite this rationale list from the document.
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0016.html
> 
> I propose we meet on 10 Jan at 1400 UTC.  I believe Alistair expected
> to be available.
> 
> -Ralph
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:53:36 UTC