Time to reconsider namespace URIs?

I'm beginning to think we may have crossed that line now with the latest 
round of decisions.

I don't have my thoughts together right now, but I think it was some of 
Mike Dean's concerns that made me think that maybe we should reconsider 
adopting a new namespace URI, so that the volumes of existing RDF data can 
be migrated rather than invalidated.

#g
--


At 10:33 AM 10/21/02 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:

> >>>Patrick Stickler said:
> >
> >
> > Seeing as how datatyping is now a part of the RDF core
> > rather than a part of RDFS, should we change rdfs:Datatype
> > to rdf:Datatype?
>
>We have to tread as carefully as possible since we want to be able to
>justify keeping the rdf: namespace URI the same.  If it seems the rdf
>namespace gets too many new semantic terms (Properties and Classes)
>then the namespace looks increasingly like it would have to change.
>
>At present, we've removed some syntax things - rdf:aboutEach*
>and added some new syntax things - rdf:nodeID, rdf:datatype, so
>we are on the line.
>
>If we were changing the namespace(s), we'd surely split the rdf/xml
>syntax terms / semantic terms completely.  But not in this round of
>specs and not at this stage in document writing.
>
>Just my thoughts.
>
>Dave

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>