ISSUE-106

namespace

RESOLVED: reuse OWL 1.0 namespace?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Jeremy Carroll

Opened on:

2008-03-28

Description:

An HP reviewer suggests that it causes practical difficulty to have new properties and classes in a new namespace, and sees no real loss in adding the new stuff to the old namespace.


Note: this part of issue is fixed by change to OWL2:
He also notes that owl11 as a prefix is an invitation to typos.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: [p4-feedback] [Pellet-users] Protege4 & Pellet compatibility (from hoekstra@uva.nl on 2008-05-16)
2. implementation of several resolutions in OWL 2 Full Wiki (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-04-25)
3. Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106: namespace for owl2 rdf/xml (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-04-18)
4. Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106: namespace for owl2 rdf/xml (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-04-18)
5. RE: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106: namespace for owl2 rdf/xml (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-04-18)
6. Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106: namespace for owl2 rdf/xml (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-04-18)
7. Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106 and ISSUE-109: namespaces for owl2 rdf/xml and xml/owl (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-04-17)
8. Proposal to resolve ISSUE-106 and ISSUE-109: namespaces for owl2 rdf/xml and xml/owl (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-04-16)
9. Re: ISSUE-106 (namespace): RAISED: reuse OWL 1.0 namespace? owl11 poor prefix choice (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-03-31)
10. Re: ISSUE-106 (namespace): RAISED: reuse OWL 1.0 namespace? owl11 poor prefix choice (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-03-29)
11. Re: ISSUE-106 (namespace): RAISED: reuse OWL 1.0 namespace? owl11 poor prefix choice (from baojie@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-03-29)
12. ISSUE-106 (namespace): RAISED: reuse OWL 1.0 namespace? owl11 poor prefix choice (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-03-28)

Related notes:

Display change log.