- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:25:52 +0200
- To: Carlos A Velasco <carlos.velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- CC: ERT WG <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi Carlos, Thank you for this suggestion. I've incorporated it except for the owl:imports. According to the OWL specification, it says: - "An owl:imports statement references another OWL ontology containing definitions, whose meaning is considered to be part of the meaning of the importing ontology." I'm not sure that we actually want to *import* other namespaces. This relates to Notes 5&6 about requiring support for HTTP-in-RDF and for Content-in-RDF: - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090610#note5> - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/WD-EARL10-Schema-20090610#note6> Once we have a resolution on these points then we can update the RDF accordingly. For now, I've added rdfs:seeAlso for cross-referencing. Best, Shadi Carlos A Velasco wrote: > Hi all, > > According to my action item from today, which I reworded. This is also > related to ISSUE-17. > > I would suggest that we use in all our RDF Schemas the ontology headers: > <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Ontology-def> > > For instance, for EARL 1.0: > > <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""> > <owl:versionInfo>v 1.0</owl:versionInfo> > <rdfs:comment>Schema for the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) 1.0 > </rdfs:comment> > <owl:imports rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"/> > <!-- ... and all the imported namespaces here --> > </owl:Ontology> > > Like the OWL spec recommends, I would like to suggest also to use the > xml:base attribute, pointing to our namespaces, e.g.: > > xml:base="http://www.w3.org/ns/earl" > > > regards, > carlos -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ | WAI International Program Office Activity Lead | W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:26:25 UTC