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

Re: Datatyping, rdf:type inappropriate

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:22:15 +0100
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <26699.1031048535@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com said:
> 
> 
> Regarding terminology that is easiest to parse, and also in the
> interest of a clear distinction between the datatyping vocabulary
> from other RDF/S vocabulary, I propose the following:
> 
>   xmlns:rdfd="http://www.w3.org/2002/rdf-datatyping/"
> 
>   rdfd:type
> 
>   rdfd:Datatype


No thanks.

With my parser-writer's and syntax editor's hats on,
in terms of parsing, adding a new namespace is not easier.
We already have all the other syntax-related terms in the rdf:
namespace.

Please just pick your favourite name to use in rdf: from this list, I
can add it to the rdf namespace, add it to the rdf/xml syntax and we
can move on:

  rdf:lType
  rdf:dType
  rdf:lexicalForm
  ...

Please.

I'd also suggest that rdfs:Datatype was better, it is where (most)
core RDF(S) vocabulary lives and where we have been updating
non-syntax-related vocabulary.

I don't see any particular reason to add a new namespace, now that we
are basically putting datatype support in core RDF.  It seems
odd now that we have what seems to be consensus for that choice.

<snip/>

> User's simply have to keep straight the namespace, whether
> they are working with datatypes rather than "plain" RDF
> types, and choose rdfd:type over rdf:type accordingly.

rdfd:type vs rdf:dtype - not much difference there.  Adding a third
namespace means you have two wrong choices for any term.  Also
two 'type' words is bad; I guess I'm prefering a new rdf: name
without the word 'type' in it.

<snip/>

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 06:24:20 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:55 EDT