Subject: [LC response] To Simon Reinhardt
Thank you for your comment
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
The OWL WG was chartered to define OWL 2 and we consider guidance on best practice to be outside the charter of the group. We suggest that you might find it useful to discuss this in other fora such as
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.
PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL
Hello, When writing OWL ontologies in RDF syntaxes it is generally a good practice to explicitly relate the defined terms (i.e. classes, properties and individuals) back to the ontology through the property "rdfs:isDefinedBy". In OWL 2 with the introduction of owl:versionIRI there are two options now: - Relate the terms to the ontology IRI - Relate the terms to the version IRI I wonder if the working group wishes to state any preference or give advice on which option to choose? Regards, Simon