W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [ENT] reuse of rif namespace for rif:imports.

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:03:31 +0200
Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>, Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <29E25360-2AF7-4BDE-8D57-860BB75995BE@w3.org>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>

On May 18, 2010, at 18:54 , Axel Polleres wrote:

> Chime, all,
> I suggest to mark the URI for rif imports and namespace used still with an editor's note in section 7.1. 
> Both, 
> 1) I am not 100% happy with using the entailment namespace (http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/) which seems to indicate that this is a URI defining an entailment regime

I agree. I am actually unhappy with this choice:-) and would prefer to avoid it.

> 2) the rif:imports abbreviation seems to indicate that we mean the rif: namespace (http://www.w3.org/2007/rif)
> So, I suggest we add an Ednote just saying:
> "The namespace and URI used for rif:imports is still under discussion with in the group"
> for now.


> P.S.: Talked to the RIF guys today again in the RIF TC, they obviously want to review the doc (especially in case we reuse the rif: namespace)
> I am personally not so fond anymore of reusing the RIF namespace, since - as rif:imports has no semantics in RIF - that might be misleading.

The problem is... where do we put it?

- sparql namespace means that it is really really sparql specific, which it is not
- rdf or rdfs namespace would suggest that this belongs to the core functionality of RDF which is not
- ???

the rif namespace is still the most logical place...


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 10:02:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:00 UTC