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

Re: pressing question about containermembershipproperty syntax

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 15:42:09 -0500
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021221204209.GC20365@tux.w3.org>

* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2002-12-21 11:18+0000]
> My take on this:
> The namespace
>   http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
> is controlled by W3C.  We can say that it does contain the name _:1 and it 
> does not contain the name _:01.  I have never seen it suggested before that 
> _:01 was legal.  I suggest that we make it clear in the vocabulary document 
> that it is not.

In 1999, W3C published a recommendation that was all about the namespace
called "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#". At that time W3C gave no hint 
that this namespace contained things named 'nodeID', 'datatype' etc. The spec was 
somewhat elusive on whether one could expect in the future for revelations about 
such things to be made. In 2001-3 we've revealed our view that there are other 
occupants of this namespace, ie. nodeID, datatype etc. 

I believe we need to decide whether to 'seal up' this namespace with the publication of 
our specs, or whether to allow the possibility that further occupants of the ns may
be subsequently 'revealed'. Perhaps we can do this incrementally, by saying 
that the ns remains potentially open for future additions, but that we definitively 
assert that it doesn't contain anything with a name beginning with '_0'. 

In other words, we should decide whether we're claiming the RDF specs provide an 
exhaustive account of the things that are named in that namespace.

Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 15:42:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:03 UTC