re: status of rdf, rdfs, and owl ``namespace files''

Nick,

Thanks for this comment.  Its been recorded as:

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#efth-01

The RDFCore WG will consider this comment and respond to you in due course.

Brian

At 15:06 10/03/2003 -0700, Efthymiou, Nick wrote:


>In my opinion, this topic is related to the 3rd Note in
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-Namespace
>
>Following the principles laid out by TBL in
>http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html
>and http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html (Cool URIs don't change),
>the w3c SHOULD provide a new URI to replace
>http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# ,
>possibly a mnemonically similar one, say
>http://www.w3.org/2003/22-rdf-syntax-ns# ,
>and the "namespace document" at the replacement URI should contain the
>updates
>noted under the 2nd Note of
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-Namespace
>,
>namely the addition of List, first, rest, nil, nodeID, XMLLiteral and
>datatype.
>
>This will (1) allow users and tool evaluators to discern whether a RDF tool
>implements
>the semantics of 1999 RDF or whether it implements the semantics of RDF /
>RDFS
>as extended to support OWL and
>(2) allow tool implementors to use a conforming source document (namely the
>namespace document posted by the w3c) to build conforming tools.
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>- Nick -
>
> >       WARNING: All e-mail sent to or from this address will be received or
> > otherwise recorded by the Charles Schwab corporate e-mail system and is
> > subject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure to someone
> > other than the recipient.
> >
> >