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:

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:



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.


> 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.


Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 06:24:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:59 UTC