W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: new issue: rdf-namespace-change

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 06:23:36 -0400 (EDT)
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0204260621190.18793-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Graham Klyne wrote:

> At 11:09 AM 4/26/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> >On 2002-04-25 15:56, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-namespace-change
> > >
> > > Summary: Some changes have been made to the RDF language (deletion of
> > > aboutEach*) and definition of terms (rdfs:domain, rdfs:range). This would
> > > normally call for a change of namespace URI's. If they are not changed, a
> > > strong case must be made.
> > >
> > > Brian
> >
> >
> >If it is in fact decided that the namespaces must change, I propose
> >that there be a single new namespace for all RDF, RDFS, RDFD terms.
>
> I have a lot of sympathy for this idea, and I can't offhand think of any
> disadvantages.

*If* we changed, I'd argue to put RDF 'model' and RDFS properties and
classes in a common schema, and datatyping in a separate one. Unless we
get rapid community buy-in on our datatyping design, which we're yet to
see. Another namespace for syntactic constructs (rdf:about, rdf:resource)
seems plausible and neater, though I don't see any great demand for it.

That said, I don't think we should change the namespace.

We should instead be clear about taking this seriously, and poll the
tool and content creators whose work this will affect. My instint is that
they'd support us staying with the old namespace URIs.

Dan
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 06:24:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:36 EDT