Currently, exporting the result of a model/diagram into an RDF/OWL output assigns all elements to the same namespace. In practice, this is highly inconvenient, since the elements that belong to the foundational ontology, viz. UFO, express a different abstraction layer. In fact, according to best practices in ontology engineering, a domain ontology should specialise from a foundational ontology. When one wants to combine or integrate two domain ontologies that both are specialisations from UFO, this is hampered by the fact that the UFO elements should be identical in both ontologies, but cannot be handled as such due to different namespaces.
I think that bringing the UFO elements to one unique namespace and having the user specify her own namespace for the domain, using the ontology would become much simpler, at least when combining two or more domain ontologies that specialise from the same foundation.
Currently, exporting the result of a model/diagram into an RDF/OWL output assigns all elements to the same namespace. In practice, this is highly inconvenient, since the elements that belong to the foundational ontology, viz. UFO, express a different abstraction layer. In fact, according to best practices in ontology engineering, a domain ontology should specialise from a foundational ontology. When one wants to combine or integrate two domain ontologies that both are specialisations from UFO, this is hampered by the fact that the UFO elements should be identical in both ontologies, but cannot be handled as such due to different namespaces.
I think that bringing the UFO elements to one unique namespace and having the user specify her own namespace for the domain, using the ontology would become much simpler, at least when combining two or more domain ontologies that specialise from the same foundation.