Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses, take 2

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Bray" <>
> To: "TAG" <>
> > >TimBL made the point that if the only definitive material
> > >I have about my namespace is, say, an XML Schema, why
> > >not use that as a namespace document? i.e. why use
> > >indirection just for the sake of it?
> >
> > Because I just have trouble believing in an interesting
> > namespace whose only definitive material is an XML Schema;
> > or any other kind of schema, using "schema" in the syntax-
> > constraint sense.  Can we have some examples please?
> Most folks who use DAML+OIL, soon to be WebOnt, to define
> an ontology I th9ink feel they are done without any other material,
> as the best practice is to put the descriptions into the ontology
> where they are explicitly associated with the properties being defined.
>  lists a whole bunch of ontologies
> defined in DAML.

Well, yes, except that I might have all of:

RDF Schema,
DAML+OIL ontology
OWL (webont) ontology

each that may describe a namespace. Suppose a straightforward examples: N3
and RDF Schema, or DAML+OIL and OWL, each for the same namespace. Suppose I
have a working N3 schema, or RDF Schema serialized as N3 at a namespace, and
wish to add an OWL ontology later.

It may turn out that even when there appears to be a single well defined way
of specifying a namespace, that different clients may want different
serializations etc. , at least not in the beginning, but at some point in
the lifespan of the namespace.


Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 17:53:05 UTC