I think the OWL 2 working group is no longer suggesting a separate namespace for the OWL 2 extensions (which was still the case for 1.1). So any namespace related fix that I do now might be throw-away code.
Holger On Mar 17, 2009, at 1:15 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) wrote: > > > > Hmmm, but you could then reuse it as owl3.0 tick box :) > > But seriously, when do you think the 2.0 stuff will be > formalised/finilized, soon? > > Ch/Michel > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Holger > Knublauch > Sent: 16 March 2009 17:31 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [tbc-users] Re: activate owl1.1 - small issue > > > Hi Michel, > > yes that would work in theory. I hope you can live with this small > inconvenience until the new namespaces for 2.0 will be finalized etc. > > Holger > > > On Mar 16, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Michel Bohms wrote: > >> >> Hi Holger, >> >> when you load an ontology that already has the owl11 name space, the >> owl11 tick box is empty >> would be more logical that this is detected and box is already ticked >> >> I know you could say it is "activate" and not "activated" but then I >> would prefer the interpretation "activated" and preticked after >> detection....(ie I prefer a tick box to correspond to a state iso a >> event...) >> >> Michel >>> > > > > This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at > http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
