From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 12/21/00
I thought we had agreed on daml+oil, not daml+ont. I has assumed the names would be: daml+oil.daml daml+oil-ex.daml On December 20, Dan Connolly writes: > Mike Dean wrote: > > > > Let's plan to use entries under > > > > http://www.daml.org/2000/12/ > > > > with > > > > daml+ont.daml for the namespace > > Please don't include the extension in the namespace name. Just use: > > http://www.daml.org/2000/12/daml+ont# > > As to why, see > http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI > > Other than that, I agree. > > > > daml+ont-index.html for a dispatch page (HTML references > > to the release should generally point here) > > > > daml-ex.daml, etc. > > > > This approach has the following advantages > > > > short URI for namespace > > > > keeps all files together > > > > consistency with the daml-ont release > > > > avoids the content negotiation problem with daml-ont.daml > > that I introduced by using daml-ont.html as the dispatch > > page > > yup. > > > allows for the possibility of other files also being under > > 2000/12/ > > > > Thanks! > > > > Mike > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > office: tel:+1-913-491-0501 > pager: mailto:connolly.pager@w3.org > (put return phone number in from/subject)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST