W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > July 2008

Re: rif:text / owl:internationalizedString

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:04:08 +0100
Message-Id: <8B7340C7-D8D0-4595-80C0-5C8D1F74D8EB@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, <public-rif-comments@w3.org>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Jie Bao" <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

On Jul 9, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:

>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Another alternative is to define a completely separate namespace for
>>> extra RDF stuffs, but I am not sure that is nice...
> What about "rdfx:"? (Analog to "javax".) This namespace would still  
> be under
> the control of the W3C, but would allow different working groups to  
> put
> stuff there, if it conceptually matches RDF(S)... or if these  
> working groups
> simply cannot settle on a winner. ;-) I assume that all three  
> parties (OWL,
> RIF, and RDF people) could pretty well live with this solution.


> Now that I think about this idea, I wonder if it would have been a  
> better
> idea to put RDF reification and collections under such an "rdfx"  
> namespace,
> too...

OMG, please, please no.

Every namespace is a huge burden on authors and can cause a mess for  
tools, etc. It's amazing to me that we can stand to have the first  
two screens of a document be all abbreviation baloney when *we're a  
single organization (W3C)*!!!!!!! Good god, y'all (what is it good  

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 21:04:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:49:19 UTC