OWL-Time namespace name

The OWL-Time draft does not explicitly give a namespace URI
for
this ontology.   Reference [8] points to a .owl file in
Feng's part
of the isi.edu URI space.  That file and the linked RDF/XML
examples
use the namespaces

   http://www
.isi.edu/~pan/damltime/time.owl#
   htt
p://www.isi.edu/~pan/damltime/timezone-us.owl#

[8] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/Time-
Ontology#ref-8

I don't think the WG really intends those to be the proposed
namespace names and they probably won't fly with W3C
namespace naming policy anyway [2].

[2] http://www.w3.org/
2005/07/13-nsuri

I intend to change these to

  http://www.w3.org/200
6/09/time#
  http://www.w3.
org/2006/09/timezone-us#

I hope this is not controversial.  I don't think the
reviewers
noticed this.  I think I may have noticed it last year but I
can't
find evidence that I commented.  I don't know how much
running code may exist that depends on those damltime URIs.

Please respond quickly if you think we need to discuss this
change.

-Ralph

That sounds fine to me, Ralph.  Thanks for catching this.

Regards,
Dave


On 27 Sep2006, at 21:36, Ralph R. Swick wrote:

>
> The OWL-Time draft does not explicitly give a namespace
URI for
> this ontology.   Reference [8] points to a .owl file in
Feng's part
> of the isi.edu URI space.  That file and the linked
RDF/XML examples
> use the namespaces
>
>    http://www
.isi.edu/~pan/damltime/time.owl#
>    htt
p://www.isi.edu/~pan/damltime/timezone-us.owl#
>
> [8] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/Time-
Ontology#ref-8
>
> I don't think the WG really intends those to be the
proposed
> namespace names and they probably won't fly with W3C
> namespace naming policy anyway [2].
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/
2005/07/13-nsuri
>
> I intend to change these to
>
>   http://www.w3.org/200
6/09/time#
>   http://www.w3.
org/2006/09/timezone-us#
>
> I hope this is not controversial.  I don't think the
reviewers
> noticed this.  I think I may have noticed it last year
but I can't
> find evidence that I commented.  I don't know how much
> running code may exist that depends on those damltime
URIs.
>
> Please respond quickly if you think we need to discuss
this change.
>
> -Ralph
>
>
>

At 08:37 AM 9/28/2006 -0400, David Wood wrote:
>That sounds fine to me, Ralph.

OK, glad someone is listening 

I already ran this past Feng and he's ok with a change.

>  Thanks for catching this.

Actually, DanC caught it.  Thanks for covering us, Dan!

>On 27 Sep2006, at 21:36, Ralph R. Swick wrote:
...
>>I intend to change these to
>>
>>  http://www.w3.org/200
6/09/time#
>>  http://www.w3.
org/2006/09/timezone-us#

I now have Director's approval for

  http://www.w3.org/ns/
2006/time#
  http://www.w3.
org/ns/2006/timezone-us#

(i.e. the new W3C URI space for namespace names), so
absent any objections or requests for further discussion
in the next couple of hours that is what we'll put in the
published WD.

On Sep 28, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Ralph R. Swick wrote:

> I now have Director's approval for
>
>   http://www.w3.org/ns/
2006/time#
>   http://www.w3.
org/ns/2006/timezone-us#
>
> (i.e. the new W3C URI space for namespace names), so
> absent any objections or requests for further
discussion
> in the next couple of hours that is what we'll put in
the
> published WD.

A quick question, as an ontology developer:  Will these
namespaces  
actually dereference to OWL files?  Tools like Protege work
better if  
one can reach out and touch an OWL file.


--
Pete Haglich
Lockheed Martin Applied Technology Laboratories, ISX
Laboratory
Virginia Beach, VA
Mobile (757) 572-5913

At 05:01 PM 9/28/2006 -0400, Pete Haglich wrote:
>A quick question, as an ontology developer:  Will these
namespaces  
>actually dereference to OWL files?

yes, and the final namespaces (sorry for all the
intermediate versions)
became:

http://www.w3.org/2006/t
ime#
http://www.w3.org/
2006/time-entry#
http://www.w3.org/20
06/timezone#
http://www.w3.org/200
6/time-us#
http://www.w3.org/
2006/time-world#

These really should be explicit in some future version of
the WD.

>  Tools like Protege work better if  
>one can reach out and touch an OWL file.

of course 

And the documents at these namespace names are all served as
Content-Type: application/rdf+xml per the RDF
Recommendation.
(and unfortunately most deployed browsers still don't do
anything
clever out-of-the-box with that content type.)

The new Semantic Web Deployment Working Group has an
opportunity to cite these namespaces in its work on
Vocabulary
Management.