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

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

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:28:45 +0100
Cc: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C7E60420-BB07-46BE-9F63-FCA4CDFBFF8E@deri.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 21 May 2010, at 11:03, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 
> 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.
>> 
> 
> +1
> 
>> 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...

I think we can propose this and see what RIF thinks about it upon asking them explicitly for review... i
n that sense, it would make sense to do that change even now already before the upcoming pub round, to get quick feedback. 

Still I am afraid it has some awkward corner cases, that might be considered unintuitive, I have no real better suggestion except a new namespace.
As for the argument against a sparql controlled namespace... if it is not used by RIF, and not in the core functionality of RDF, I am getting afraid  
a bit we may need to ask ourselves, in what sense it is *not* sparal-specific? :-|

Axel




> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 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 10:29:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT