W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Preparing editor's drafts -- Q's for the team contacts

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:43:04 +0100
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0376A559-E146-4D67-85AB-C51C3BBE7A1D@cyganiak.de>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On 25 May 2011, at 10:05, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> We also need to think about managing / evolving the (currently
>> CVS-archived) namespace documents for RDF and RDFS.
> 
> I would expect those to stay in CVS space and we will just update those. Eric, Sandro or I can update them at any time if needed.
> 
> 'If needed' is the key here: unless we add new terms (eg, a new datatype...) then those files should be o.k., though I would probably produce a turtle version for both

I'm strongly in favour of putting some proper content-negotiated human- and machine-readable documents at the rdf: and rdfs: namespace URIs. To be honest, it's quite a disgrace that W3C is ignoring its own best-practice advice [1] and still publishing RDF like it's 1999...

This is already raised as ISSUE-39 [2].

Given that this is issue is cutting across specs, it might make sense to appoint a WG member to own this issue. Sort of an “Editor of Authoritative Representations”, in the HTTP sense...

Best,
Richard


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/39
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 10:43:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:43 GMT