- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:01:27 +0200
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Sandro and al., I jump on this discussion because more and more namespace no more use the date See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Aug/0081.html Here is the summary http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri As XBL (http://www.w3.org/ns/xbl), WSDL (http://www.w3.org/ns/wsdl), EARL (http://www.w3.org/ns/earl#) and so on That's also the case for ISO DSDL NVDL (http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/nvdl/ns/structure/1.0), etc... Is is possible to consider this change ? Regards, Mohamed On 3/29/07, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > > > At F2F5, we were discussing what namespace to use for RIF and I > mistakenly suggested that it was administratively easier to use > "http://www.w3.org/2007/01/rif#" than "http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#". > TimBL, as W3C Director, encourages us to use the later. > > So, unless someone objects (probably today), I'll change the appendix in > the rif-core draft, before publication, to have the namespace be > "http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#". > > The only reason I can think of to stick with using "01" in this draft is > if we expect to change the namespace name before the end of the year. > We would want to do that if, for instance, we had an established user > base using one namespace and needed the standard to support them while > also supporting a new user base. That seems extremely unlikely -- we > are not committed to provide stability until we get to Rec, and it's > quite unlikely we'll be working on an incompatible alternative, also > called "rif", in 2007, after Rec. And if we are, we could always call > it ...2007/12/rif or ...2007/rif2# or something. > > -- Sandro > > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 08:01:30 UTC