A namespace URI is related to an endpoint address.

It is not necessary, complex systems of local and on-line cashing can blur this relationship. Therefore it is useful to have separate namespaces per type of data as additional instrument to manage the complexity.

Onno,

Please clarify poll options. It seems that No means for you "out with dm:" part, and I've exactly opposite opinion.

We need only dm: entities, as a restricted and clearly identifiable set of 201 entities in a separate namespace. This 201 classes and all possible templates constitute the domain of rdf:type property.

No need to copy them in RDL.

We also have two different human readable ID's - for developers and for business. I'd like very much to hear the reasons for that. Special semantic constructs will be required to maintain correspondence. And at the same time we still need ways to express unlimited number of other possible identific...

Ian For versionable items the ID needs to include versioning. No they don't! We've to use semantic constructs as much as possible. We've to use restricted subset of semantic constructs - the set which is defined to represent Part 2 and Part 7 concepts - as much as possible. Loading URI with versioni...

Sorry, I wasn't notified of your reply in time somehow. 1. No separation at all: Look at one of sandboxes: http://www.iringsandbox.org/repositories/SandboxPt8/query Query: PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> SELECT * WHERE {?uri rdf:type <http://dm.rdlfacade.org/data#ClassOfEve...

I feel it necessary to discuss the best practices of separation between template definitions and reference data proper in an endpoint. There are three options available: - No separation at all, complex SPARQL queries can extract data based on type declarations. - Separate graphs at one query interfa...

I've posted it some time ago in LinkedIn community, but it'll be better to have it here in public. Verifying various types of ISO 15926 data with our software we've met a mistake in publicly distributed p7tpl.owl file. There are two template role definitions with labels non compliant to Part 8: <owl...

[HT] Classify with what? Specialization relationships between the URClass and its "temporary" subclasses should be distinguishable from other specialization relationships these classes may be involved in. Therefore in a fully expanded model they have to be declared members of a special class of spe...

Pavel, the deprivation of part2 Class of Relationship happened some years ago - with the introduction of templates. Relationships can regain their place though - once we learn to work with data expanded from templates. As I've mentioned in my second comment to this thread, merging of OIMs in the ori...