The OWL-Time draft does not explicitly give a namespace URI for
this ontology. Reference  points to a .owl file in Feng's part
of the isi.edu URI space. That file and the linked RDF/XML examples
use the namespaces
I hope this is not controversial. I don't think the reviewers
noticed this. I think I may have noticed it last year but I can't
find evidence that I commented. I don't know how much
running code may exist that depends on those damltime URIs.
Please respond quickly if you think we need to discuss this change.
These really should be explicit in some future version of the WD.
> Tools like Protege work better if
>one can reach out and touch an OWL file.
of course :)
And the documents at these namespace names are all served as
Content-Type: application/rdf+xml per the RDF Recommendation.
(and unfortunately most deployed browsers still don't do anything
clever out-of-the-box with that content type.)
The new Semantic Web Deployment Working Group has an
opportunity to cite these namespaces in its work on Vocabulary