> On 26 Oct 2017, at 15:59, Richard Cyganiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On 26 Oct 2017, at 15:20, David Price <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Also, it’s very rare to see an *ontology* URI ending in #, Others may be >> able to produce examples but off the top of my head, I cannot think of any >> any customer, industry or standard ontology built that way. > > I’ll give you two examples that you might find surprising: > > <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> a owl:Ontology ; > <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> a owl:Ontology ;
Interesting and odd since the RDFS schema is by-defintiion not an OWL ontology since OWL concepts do not not exist in the RDFS-only world. Looking at it, I see that the RDF 1.1 spec only ever says the URI ending with # is a “namespace”. Nowhere does it say it’s an ontology, because that term is not defined in RDFS. At least the text is correct. Note that by the OWL 2 spec this “error” has been fixed and if you dereference the OWL 2 URI (with or without the #) you get: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl> a owl:Ontology ; Cheers, David UK +44 7788 561308 US +1 336 283 0606 > > The practice went out of fashion shortly afterwards. OWL omitted the trailing > hash. Other popular early vocabularies such as DC, FOAF and SKOS all went for > slash namespaces. > > Not disagreeing with anything else you said. > > Richard > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
