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

Re: XMLLiteral belongs in RDF namespace, not RDFs

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:10:33 +0000
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <8295.1036959033@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Graham Klyne said:
> 
> Short response:
> 
> I think we're moving toward using rdf:... rather than rdfs:..., and I'm 
> happy with that.

<snip/>

I'm not.

The main reason: the more we *add* things of significance to the RDF
namespace (not syntax construction machinery such as rdf:datatype,
rdf:nodeID) and the RDF namespace URI RDF Schema document, the more
likely the URI of the namespace will have to change since the
namespaces's meaning has significantly changed.  (I did ask that
rdf:List etc went in the RDFS namespace).

If that happens, we cause all existing RDF/XML files (and RDF
graphs) to no longer be RDF/XML (revised) files / RDF-revised graphs.

Then we have made a new XML syntax and a new RDF, RDF2.

Which was not our charter.

For me, all new things go in rdfs: unless there is a very good
reason.  

Maybe explaining RDF vs RDFS 'layers' or entailments is a good enough
one.  I can't see how that would help work out where rdf:Datatype
should go, since it isn't clear if it is 'core' RDF or RDFS
semantics.

Dave
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 15:11:39 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:03 EDT