- From: R.V.Guha <guha@guha.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:26:29 -0700
- To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
This is not just a single namespace. It is a space of namespaces. So, some terms from owl will be in it. As will some terms from daml-s and so on. Any term inroduced by any future language to deal with logical machinery (e.g., log:implies by cwm/euler), should be designatable as going into this namspace so that RDF doesn't think its a simple triple. guha patrick hayes wrote: > >> At 12:07 12/06/2002 -0500, patrick hayes wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> What is wrong with URI inspection? >> >> >> Questions: >> >> o what uri prefix should be used? Is it ok to insist on an http: >> prefix? > > > I would guess so. I would expect that it would be done the same way > that the W3C handles the RDF and RDFS vocabulary, by a URL linking to > a set-in-stone page. > >> o how will names in this namespace be allocated? > > > Do you mean how procedurally? Thats up the W3C. I would guess that a > WG would submit some kind of application to some internal secretariat, > or something like that. Isnt this kind of stuff all set out in the W3C > process manual somewhere? For example, we are proposing to create an > rdfd: namespace, right? Like that. > > Pat > >
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 19:27:10 UTC