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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:50:16 -0800
Message-ID: <52975828.1010401@gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, team-rdf-chairs@w3.org
Well, I don't see anything to respond to here, as there is no evidence here 
that anyone is proposing this sort of change.

If someone wants this change to be considered, they should float the idea.   
If there already has been public discussion of this change, and a decision to 
gather further input, then there should have been a pointer to the appropriate 
messages from this message.

peter

On 11/28/2013 06:27 AM, 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.
>
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 14:50:47 UTC

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