Comments on SKOS namespace change question

Reading http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-reference-20080829/ ,

I sympathize very much with the people who want to keep the namespace  
the same.
  We're trying to get critical mass and cutting some of the data off  
and letting it float away by itself it is costly. I don't generate  
skos myself, but I have come across it.

Some people think it's important. I strongly suggest giving new names  
(within the same namespace)  to the five things which have changed,  
especially if they're rather obscure.

You have of course to evaluate the damage if you were to just make an  
erratum to skos 2005.

Did you in 2005 make a say about the change rules for skos 2005
I suggest to use new names and not change the namespace.

Tim