W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: What Name Should A Namespace Name?

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:44:28 +0100
Message-ID: <000901c0c2af$2d416660$55d993c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, <swag-dev@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> <- So, to my original question (what to use as a namespace name),
> <- I think that using an HTTP URI should probably be avoided,
>
> Sorry Sean, what were you suggesting as an alternative?

Anything URI that has a non-dereferencing scheme, but has a central
administration body. That'll be a URN then. Having said that, I don't
see why a data:, URL couldn't be used, due to the level of
specificity. IMHO, a tann: [1] would be ideal for this... naming an
abstract concept directly without any particular resolution mechanism,
although people are by now so dependent upon HTTP, it makes me wonder.
That's why I was rambling a bit about using HTTP for namespaces - yes,
all of this has been covered in depth before, and there have been
endless circular debates, but these often end up disappearing down the
theoretical rat-hole. The fact of the matter is, namespaces are being
created all the time, as are terms, and we need to have some semblance
of order - best practises and the like, to ensure we don't end up with
a semantic melee.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/02/tann/

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 13:46:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT