- From: Ian Dickinson <ian.dickinson@hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:31:26 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Hi Bijan, > Thanks for the read and comments! You're welcome. >> The namespace is .../generic/ObjectList.owl, so perhaps objList: or >> generic: would be more graceful namespace prefixes? > Er..generic...definitly not :) objList perhaps, but I also intended it > to read fairly closely with the ormal rdf prefix, e.g., rdf:List, > shadow-rdf:List (i.e., it's a sort of rdf:List-a-like). I guess my comment was founded on the fact that *everyone* who looks at rdf:List and wants one in their ontology has the same problem. It's certainly something that comes up fairly frequently on the Jena forum. So owl-s is not alone in wanting to "shadow" rdf lists, and therefore it seemed to me that it would be better to be a little more self-contained. > I'm not deeply attached to it by any means Nor am I to the original comment :-) Recognising its trivial nature, I hesitated whether to even make the suggestion in the first place. >But, I think it's as graceful, acutally rather > more so, than your proposed alternative (*especially* generic). :-) I usually try to make my namespace prefixes from the, er, namespace they represent. Since generic was a part of the namespace it seemed worth a throwaway suggestion. *I* wouldn't use generic as a namespace prefix in my RDF documents either, as it happens! Ian
Received on Saturday, 20 November 2004 10:32:03 UTC