From: Ian Horrocks ([email protected])
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:[email protected]
> (put return phone number in from/subject)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST