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

Re: towards closure of issue: rdf-namespace-change

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0204261143390.21539-100000@tux.w3.org>

I agree with all below; have no time to spend on this right now. I'll
bookmark this for next time...

My action was, I believe, to propose closure. I withdraw from any
aspirations to do so; I sketch a path towards closure (below); the final
RDFS tweaks before publication may make a little progress on this, but no
promises.

Dan

On 26 Apr 2002, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 10:24, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >
> > I propose we close rdf-namespace-issue as follows.
> >
> > Is this enough to close the issue
>
> I don't think so; I don't think it makes the case for why
> we should be able to keep the old namespace name even though
> we're changing the language.
>
> It suggests that there is a case to be made, but it
> doesn't make the case.
>
> I'd like to help write it, but I'm not in a good position just now.
>
>
> >   (@@ also ptr to charter which has nice words on this tension)
>
> perhaps pasting those words in is a step forward.
>
> > - that the final RDF Core RECommendations will set clearer expectations
> >   about the impact of subsequent revisions to RDF on the use of these
> >   namespaces.
>
> That's another promise that I'd like fullfilled before we close
> the issue.
>
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
>
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 11:46:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:37 EDT