W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

policy for rdf: namespace? was Re: Vocab terms for owner, validFrom and validUntil

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:45:55 -0400
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1337031955.3256.236.camel@waldron>
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 00:21 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
> We have created 3 terms for the PaySwarm vocabulary that we think may be
> better off in the rdf or rdfs vocabulary. They have to do with
> "resources" on the Web.

Reading over this thread, I think we need a policy about what goes into
the rdf: and rdfs: namespaces.   Until we have that, we can't sensibly
decide about whether any particular terms should go there.

I think it's fair to say whatever policy was used originally, in the
90s, is painfully out of date.  Since then, the lack of policy has meant
the namespace has stagnated.

Of course we're tremendously constrained by existing deployments, but I
think it would be good to distinguish between what *should* be there as
best practice, and what is merely there for backward compatibility.

Also, as I've pointed out many times, I don't think the Semantic Web
(even in the simplified schema.org vision) can possibly work
until/unless clients are willing to allow for synonyms.  To say that
there can only ever be one correct name for the things that rdfs:comment
or foaf:Person names is ... unworkable.

> The first is the canonical "owner" of a resource on the Web. Keep in
> mind that this is different from dc:creator and those types of
> expressions. It could be used to establish the owner of a financial
> account (that uses a web address), a public key that is published to the
> Web, or a variety of other pieces of information that "belong" to an IRI
> identifier (like a person's identifier).

I'd love to dive into the ontology-design questions here, but ... I
think that's out of scope for this group.   I'm kind of baffled who
might handle this.  A community group seems like overkill, but might be
okay.  I think broad, upper-ontology concepts are tricky that way.

> The second and third are validity periods for particular pieces of
> information - like when is an offer for a good or service valid from/to?
> When was a home address valid from/to? When was a public key valid from/to?

This is also out of scope here, but IMO very relevant to GRAPHs, as a
use case.

Please read:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-spaces/index.html#example-validtime

I suggest some group of us put together a simple spec, and use a
namespace like http://www.w3.org/ns/valid-time#.   We can publish it as
a Web page, Submission, or some group's Note for now.

I note that the GLD-WG is chartered to RECOMMEND a best practice for
this, but hasn't dealt with it yet.  To do this right, I think the group
has to understand bitemporal databases, since governments often need to
publish data that holds for some time period, and yet will be
amended/corrected at various times afterward.

   -- Sandro

> When describing resources on the Web, these three items seem like they'd
> be vital for establishing ownership and information validity periods.
> Should they go in the RDF or RDFS vocabulary?
> 
> -- manu
> 
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 21:46:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT