W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:37:32 +0300
To: Nick.Efthymiou@schwab.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <200306301737.32126.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Dear Nick

the RDF Core Working Group considered your suggestion that we should change 
the namespace URIs for RDF and RDFS.

On the 11th April, we decided not to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0207

Some discussion is reflected in say:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0153

for example
> [[
> Considering that:
> 
>   o the WG, have in multiple editions of WD's indicated its intention to 
> not to change the URI REFS for the RDF and RDFS namespaces
> 
>   o the WG explicitly requested feedback on this intention
> 
>   o very little negative feedback has been received
> 
>   o there is significant cost and complexity in changing the namespace 
> URI REFs
> 
> the RDFCore WG resolves
> 
>   o not to change the URI REFS for the RDF and RDFS namespaces
> 
>   o to ACTION the document editor's to make such editorial changes as 
> are required by this decision
> 
> ]]

Bluntly: the WG considered your opinion as a small minority, sorry.
Also apologies for the tardiness in conveying this to you. 

The changes made to RDF Concepts concerning this are the removal of the notes 
asking for comments

see
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-URIspaces

I believe a similar change will be made to RDF Syntax (I am not 100% sure).

Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating
whether this decision is acceptable.

Thanks

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 11:37:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT