[protege-user] Ontology Names

--===============2255155920970699166==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006d2c230646f611f3"

--0000000000006d2c230646f611f3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

I recently came across an example where a client was using IRIs like:
https://example_domain/example_ontology/

I.e., they were concatenating the separator character (the "/") with the
IRI name. The way I've always done it is the IRI for the ontology would
be:
https://example_domain/example_ontology

and the prefix for entities in the ontology would be:
https://example_domain/example_ontology/
(I always use the slash delimiter, I think it is a bit more efficient for
large graphs).

To my surprise everything seems to be working in their graph but I don't
recall ever seeing those kinds of IRIs. Maybe I just never noticed before.
Two questions:
1) Is that consistent with the OWL guidelines for naming ontologies?
2) Assuming the answer is yes to 1, do people think that is a good idea or
are there potential problems that could result?

Happy Holidays,
Michael
https://www.michaeldebellis.com/blog

--0000000000006d2c230646f611f3
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I recently came across an example where a client was using=
 IRIs like: <a href=3D"https://example_domain/example_ontology/">https://ex=
ample_domain/example_ontology/</a><div><br></div><div>I.e., they were conca=
tenating the separator character=C2=A0(the &quot;/&quot;) with the IRI name=
. The way I&#39;ve always done it is the IRI for the ontology would be:=C2=
=A0=C2=A0</div><div><a href=3D"https://example_domain/example_ontology">htt=
ps://example_domain/example_ontology</a>=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>and=
 the prefix for entities in the ontology would be: <a href=3D"https://examp=
le_domain/example_ontology/">https://example_domain/example_ontology/</a>=
=C2=A0</div><div>(I always use the slash delimiter, I think it is a bit mor=
e efficient for large graphs).=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>To my surpris=
e everything seems to be working in their graph but I don&#39;t recall ever=
 seeing those kinds of IRIs. Maybe I just never noticed before. Two questio=
ns:</div><div>1) Is that consistent with the OWL guidelines for naming onto=
logies?</div><div>2) Assuming the answer is yes to 1, do people think that =
is a good idea or are there potential problems that could result?</div><div=
><br></div><div>Happy Holidays,</div><div>Michael</div><div><a href=3D"http=
s://www.michaeldebellis.com/blog">https://www.michaeldebellis.com/blog</a><=
/div></div>

--0000000000006d2c230646f611f3--

--===============2255155920970699166==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

--===============2255155920970699166==--