- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 21:42:43 +0100
- To: "Tim Sebel" <tsebel@enleague.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 15:00 02/04/2002 -0500, Tim Sebel wrote: [...] >That way, I would have my own concept of "Class" that would be identical to >DAML's concept. If there are changes in the "outside world" there would only >be one place I would need to change URLs. > >Is there a reason not to do that? Your classes, properties etc wouldn't be identical, they'd have different URI's. Thus processors programmed to recognise the daml namespace would not recognise yours. A trivial example is that Jena has the daml namespace built in and will use the daml prefix when it writes out rdf/xml. A daml processor is just not going to recognise your classes and properties as daml and so won't know how to process them. I'd stick with the entities if I were you. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 15:45:43 UTC