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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:13:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030318.071358.125113041.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: Nick.Efthymiou@schwab.com
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

My comments do not address this issue at all.  I was inquiring as to what
status the contents of these files have.  

Is there any normative force to these files?  If so, what is this force?

For example, these files might be normative as to which URI references are
in the RDF / RDFS vocabulary.  They might be normative as to the semantics
of RDF or RDFS.  The OWL file might be a normative part of RDF vocabulary
extensions, i.e., any vocabulary extension might need a file that provides
(all) the RDFS meaning of vocabulary elements in the vocabulary extension.

If there is normative force to these files, then issues of change become
more important.  If there is no, then there is much less impact to any
change to the files.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies



From: "Efthymiou, Nick" <Nick.Efthymiou@schwab.com>
Subject: re: status of rdf, rdfs, and owl ``namespace files''
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:06:11 -0700

> 
> 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.
> > 
> > 
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 07:14:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT