W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > October 2015

Re: Fwd: Re: Reusing DCAT namespace for DWBP vocabs

From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:01:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKckEu5nJoThvNBLp_c96YcyhkXmKMKhz_Q7v4=ADmvcswtHpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Deirdre Lee <deirdre@derilinx.com>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
I agree with Richard. Makx
Op 7 okt. 2015 2:38 PM schreef "Deirdre Lee" <deirdre@derilinx.com>:

> Thanks to Richard for providing feedback on the reuse of DCAT ns for DQV
> and DUV:
> --------------------------
>
> Hi Dee,
>
> My view is that different vocabularies should have different namespaces.
> Having some terms in a namespace governed by one document and then other
> terms in the same namespace governed by a different document is confusing
> and counter-intuitive. It makes future maintenance harder, as several
> documents with complex interrelationships would be affected.
>
> The strongest argument for putting everything into one namespace is, I
> suppose, convenience for data publishers. They wouldn’t have to remember
> which term is in which namespace. But this ship has sailed a long time ago.
> In RDF, we have to live with terms being scattered over different
> namespaces. Even when just using plain DCAT, one has to use terms in the DC
> and SKOS namespaces.
>
> That being said, it’s the WG’s decision and not Fadi’s or mine, and I
> don’t believe there’s any rule against adding terms to a REC-defined
> namespace using a NOTE.
>
> Please feel free to forward this message to the list or share its contents
> in whatever way you see fit.
>
> All the best,
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 13:02:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 October 2015 13:02:17 UTC