- From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:24:02 -0500
- To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
- cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> My only problem will be explaining content negotiation based on MIME > types. Given our recent discussions, I now doubt that I understand > this as well as I thought. I pretty much get it for files. You might not need to say much/anything about content negotiation, which mostly gets handled by the server. If a server supporting content negotiation has only foo.owl, you can resolve it using either foo or foo.owl. Try http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl.txt (might later change to .owl) Minor nit: I've had trouble figuring out how to enable content negotiation on Microsoft IIS. I reluctantly include the .daml or .owl when referencing pages served by IIS. > But does it work for resources? E.g. > http://www.example.org/wine#RedWine vs > http://www.example.org/wine.owl#RedWine. These are distinct URIrefs (and opaque), so it's most important that they be consistent. Both URIrefs should be resolvable, as discussed above. > Does it generalize? > So that we would delete the .owl suffix from all of the following? > > <!ENTITY vin "http://www.example.org/wine.owl#" > > xmlns:vin ="http://www.example.org/wine.owl#" > <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://www.example.org/wine.owl"> Yes. > > 3) Several of us regret not providing examples of instances > > (content) separate from ontologies in the DAML+OIL examples. > > Sounds like an excellent idea. I would like to postpone it until > the next version. Great! > When I > talk about sameClasssAs, I actually suggest that the example I use is > bogus and would be better done by using a straight reference. That's sufficient. Sorry I overlooked the discussion. Another minor style point: in wine.owl and food.owl, you probably want to use the entities vin and food in their corresponding namespace declarations, i.e. <rdf:RDF xmlns:food="&food;" xmlns:vin="&vin;" ... This allows any subsequent changes to be made in one place. Thanks! Mike
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 11:24:39 UTC