W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > June 2008

Re: RE : When did SKOS namespace change, and why?

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:44:21 +0200
Message-ID: <48577965.803@mondeca.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>
Cc: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>, SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>

Antoine

Thanks for the pointer, answering my previous post. Reading 
http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html#skosnamespace where the 
decision was taken, I keep being puzzled at e.g., (Guus speaking) : 
"people using the old namespace would migrate without problem" and 
"anyway as long as the old namespace is there, nothing is made 
incoherent". What does that mean? Sorry to be dumb on this ...

Bernard

Antoine Isaac a écrit :
>
> Hi Thomas, Bernard,
>
> The decision to change the namespace was made very recently, 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/117
>
> Actaully I'd like to thank Thomas for giving such a good reason for us 
> changing the namespace ;-)
>
> The class TopConcept has been deprecated for ages, and should not be 
> used anymore. That's the kind of problem you get with keeping the 
> namespace and changing its content, either adding axioms or 
> deprecating constructs... People do actually think they can still use 
> the old stuff, or using stuff that still exists but that has changed 
> semantics, without getting punished for it.
>
> I'm afraid this is the downsize of evolving standard. And believe me, 
> in my project we also have to re-write all our conversion scripts, so 
> I'm also paying the price for this new namespace...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
> -------- Message d'origine--------
> De: public-esw-thes-request@w3.org de la part de Thomas Bandholtz
> Date: mar. 17/06/2008 08:07
> À: Bernard Vatant
> Cc: SKOS
> Objet : Re: When did SKOS namespace change, and why?
>
>
> Hi Bernard,
>
> 2008/05/skos is not downwards compatible with 2004/02/skos!
> E.g.skos:subject is discontinued, and there is no class TopConcept any 
> more.
>
> So you shouldn't just change a namespace without considering the need of
> further changes in structure, if you want to do so.
>
> I'm not really sure about "any solid reason for such a change", I only
> see this has not been guided by a wise versioning policy :-)
> This raises the question if we would need some guidelines for Ontology
> governance.
>
> Anyway, http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core# still is a cool uri!
> You don't have to change anything.
>
> Best, Thomas
>
> Bernard Vatant schrieb:
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > Reading through the latest draft dated 9 June 2008 at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/
> > The SKOS namespace URI is now http://www.w3.org/2008/05/skos#,
> > whereas in the previous versions it was
> > http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#
> > The latter has been used extensively by applications and published
> > vocabularies, which will have to be changed to be conformant to the
> > new namespace.
> > Was there any solid reason for such a change?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thomas Bandholtz, thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com, http://www.innoq.com
> innoQ Deutschland GmbH, Halskestr. 17, D-40880 Ratingen, Germany
> Phone: +49 228 9288490 Mobile: +49 178 4049387 Fax: +49 2102 77160-1
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1505 - Release Date: 16/06/2008 07:20
>   

-- 

*Bernard Vatant
*Knowledge Engineering
----------------------------------------------------
*Mondeca**
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
----------------------------------------------------
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 08:45:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:59 GMT