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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 13:21:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFoLMMssWAuG8R-KLQr1VoJ0DXewV2CkOWi_ZBqn=G9kBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 18 May 2012 12:24, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> Sandro,
>
> I think the rdf: namespace should be managed just like the www.w3.org/TR/ space: The only way to put new terms into the namespace, or modifying existing terms, is by chartering a WG and stating the scope of the namespace update in its charter.
>
> (The RDF WG is chartered to update RDF Schema, and since the rdf: namespace currently is just a reflection of the contents of that document, an update to the namespace is trivially in scope for the RDF WG.)

+1

(If chartering a WG is too inefficient, that's a problem that should
be fixed ...)

Dan

> Best,
> Richard
>
>
> On 14 May 2012, at 22:45, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>> 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 90s, is painfully out of date.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 Friday, 18 May 2012 11:21:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT