W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Deprecate http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# in favour of /ns/rdf# ??

From: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:49:22 +0100
Message-ID: <529757F2.8030002@salzburgresearch.at>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
CC: Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, team-rdf-chairs@w3.org
Even if I'd love it (probably Richard could assert that those namespaces 
are the most requested to prefix.cc, that gives you inconvenient they 
are), such cosmetic move will break too many things to consider it 
worthwhile.

But maybe such proposal should target the future RDF 2.0 that has to 
come sooner that later...

On 28/11/13 15:27, Phil Archer wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> An idea has been floated and I'd like to assess the community's
> reaction. The rdf and rdfs namespaces are hard to remember (I always
> copy and paste, I guess you do too), but how do you react to the idea of
> deprecating those namespaces in favour of the much easier to remember
> http://www.w3.org/ns/rdf|s ?
>
> For emphasis, there would be *no change* at all to the semantics of any
> term, but the existing semantics might be more clearly explained.
>
> For:
> ====
>
> 1. In addition to replicating the schemas at that namespace, more
> detailed usage notes could be added;
> 2. Multilingual labels, comments and usage notes could easily be added
> (this is something I'm really keen to promote);
> 3. You'd be able to remember the namespace.
>
> Against
> =======
> 1. Everyone just copies and pastes and loads of tools have the
> namespaces built in so it's pointless.
> 2. Any copy or derivative work might cause confusion.
> 3. One person's clarity is another person's confusion, meaning that the
> promise of not changing the semantics might be hard to keep in some
> people's minds.
>
> How it might happen
> ===================
> *IF* there is community desire for this then I would suggest that a
> Community Group be formed to take it on. Any publication of the schema
> in /ns space would have to make clear that the relevant standards remain
> untouched and normative so that if any errors are seen, then the /TR doc
> is the one to choose.
>
> Good idea?
> Stupid idea?
> Great, count me in for the Community group?
> You are a moron, please don't ever suggest anything like that ever again?
>
> If your answer is negative then I hereby deny all association :-) I'm
> just making a public version of something said to me in private.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil.
>

-- 
Sergio Fernández
Senior Researcher
Knowledge and Media Technologies
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria
T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925
sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at
http://www.salzburgresearch.at
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 14:49:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:46 UTC