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: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:04:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFrC85CMjrsYC8PCXWBTYcpn4y-6uzWXxF2-N2JO7wVFyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, "team-rdf-chairs@w3.org" <team-rdf-chairs@w3.org>
On 29 November 2013 08:41, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the feedback.
> No surprise at the level of opposition to deprecating the namespaces (again,
> I point out in my defence that I raised it after someone asked me about it;
> as a stickler for persistence I'm happy with that outcome).
> BUT... this thread has, I think, raised an interesting issue concerning the
> existing namespace documents. Taking the rdf schema as the example, it
> exists as a monolingual RDF/XML file. It sounds as if we could do better?

It has RDF links to a French translation also in RDF/XML! But yes, we
could do better.

> I'd really like to see more schemas with multilingual labels. A current
> example of that would be DCAT [1] which has its labels, comments and usage
> notes in 5 languages. I know that aspect is appreciated in many circles, I'm
> glad we've done it and hope we can see more of that (Sandro's creating a
> tool for helping with that). We already have the RDF Schema *spec* in 3
> other languages [2] so one obvious thing to do would be to add the
> multilingual labels to the namespace docs as well.
> We can do that without breaking anything - and I wonder, Richard, whether
> that might be an example of obstacle we could remove??
> Documents in /TR space may not be edited at all, ever. Documents like the
> the rdf|s and owl namespace schemas *can* be, although obviously with
> extreme caution not to break anything. Which brings me back to the idea of a
> Community Group to look at that?

Whatever we do, let's do it in RDFa this time. Humans are at least as
important consumers of schemas as computers.

FWIW I think some of the adoption we saw back with the FOAF work
(apart from being there early) came from having namespace URIs
de-reference to (more or less) human readable documentation. Far too
many schema URIs point at a ridiculously unreadable XML file that just
gets saved to disk and can't be opened with any useful tooling.


> Phil.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2003/03/Translations/byTechnology?technology=rdf-schema
> On 29/11/2013 07:21, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>> On 28 Nov 2013, at 23:10, "Charles McCathie Nevile"
>>> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>> But I object to the idea of using schema.org - among other things, using
>>> a namespace rooted in a domain you don't control is a terrible idea.
>> I control neither schema.org nor w3.org, so by that logic using either is
>> a terrible idea.
>>> And holding namespaces for RDF fundamentals is a long way outside
>>> schema.org's mission,
>> I have some news for you. May I direct your attention to
>> http://schema.org/Property
>> http://schema.org/Class
>> http://schema.org/domainIncludes
>> http://schema.org/rangeIncludes
>> http://schema.org/sameAs
>> http://schema.org/additionalType
>> That's a pretty good start and I'd like to see more.
>>> whereas it seems an obvious thing to expect W3C to do.
>> W3C does a fine job *holding* namespaces for RDF fundamentals. But that's
>> not enough. W3C does a terrible job at removing obstacles to adoption that
>> were designed into these namespaces in the distant past.
>> Best,
>> Richard
> --
> Phil Archer
> W3C eGovernment
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
Received on Friday, 29 November 2013 09:05:24 UTC

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