W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:20:46 -0400
Message-ID: <00a601c0e96f$ec48a780$c4cf79a5@preferreduser>
To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>, "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> If we change the meaning of RDF, then we change the namespace. I
don't think
> we'll need anything more.

If W3C history is a guide, this is not really an option.

It was made quite clear to us on the XHTML WG that a namespace is a
namespace is a namespace!

e.g. frames, strict and loose XHTML all have the same namespace.

No there is XML 1.0, and the upcoming XML 1.1, and we need to do the
same thing.

versioning, although mundane _is_important.

Frank

Frank


----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>
To: "Frank Boumphrey" <bckman@ix.netcom.com>; "RDFCore Working Group"
<w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Issue
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion


> Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > this however brings up another point. How do we version RDF or
> > documents or the namespaces they use?
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > <?rdf version="1.0"?>
> > <?namespaces version="1.0"?>
> >
> > If we are talking about changing things around then we are
definately
> > going to have to address these issues, although i think they will
> > (should!) prove to be easy.
>
> If we change the meaning of RDF, then we change the namespace. I
don't think
> we'll need anything more.
>
> --
> [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ;
<http://www.aaronsw.com> ]
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 21:08:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:55 EDT