- From: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:09:07 +0000
- To: SWD Working SWD <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
At ISWC, I had a long discussion with Mike Uschold about the namespace change issue. You may have seen his email summarising his position on the semantic-web list [1]. I tend to disagree with Mike here, and I am now of the opinion that sticking with the original namespace and changing the semantics of the term is the approach we should take (as resolved in the 07/10/08 telecon [2]). I also note a response from Michael Lang (Jr.) [3] which essentially matches Simon Jupp's opinion [4] and (as I read it) supports our position. It may be worthwhile making it clear somewhere that one of the reasons why we feel that we are able to do this is because there were explicit warnings of possible changes to the vocabulary before Rec (as highlighted by Jeremy [5]). Should this be included in the Reference Appendix discussing the namespace? Sean [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Oct/0192.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0114.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Oct/0197.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0036.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Oct/0077.html -- Sean Bechhofer School of Computer Science University of Manchester sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/people/bechhofer
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 10:09:36 UTC