- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:25:45 -0600
- To: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 09:38, Sean Bechhofer wrote: > Raphael and I would like to propose the following changes to the > concrete syntax. This is based on our implementation experience over > the last couple of weeks. [...] > 2) Move everything into the owl namespace. Been there, discussed that, no thanks. 5.20 Should OWL provide synonyms for RDF and RDFS objects? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.20-should-OWL-provide-synonyms-for-RDF-and-RDFS-objects I don't see any new information that would merit reopening this decision. > Thus rather than using > rdf:type, rdfs:domain, rdfs:range etc., we have owl:type, owl:domain > etc. This would have two benefits: > > a) Reduce user confusion as to which namespace to use. Examples in > the past have shown that users typically get confused about whether > they should use, for example rdf:type or rdfs:type or > owl:type. > > b) This would also be of benefit when processing or parsing OWL > ontologies as the processor can make assumptions about the type of > the object of, for example owl:domain (which must be some > owl:Class). > > If the OWL.owl schema specification contains the relevant > assertions. e.g. > > owl:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type > > then any ontology written using the owl vocabulary would still be > accessible to an RDF/RDFS processor. > > Cheers, > > Sean -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 11:25:48 UTC