- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:43:47 +0300
- To: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>, danny666@virgilio.it, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On Apr 06, 2004, at 09:36, ext Ian Davis wrote: > > > Hi Jeremy, > > On Monday, April 5, 2004, 3:00:35 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> Thus something like a dated version of a W3C tech report which really >> does >> not change I am happy with having a date in the URL. But something >> like the >> RDF namespace, the 1999 in there is just plain confusing if you ask >> me. > Isn't the point that the date provides a context for what follows. For > example, I minted the URI http://www.semanticplanet.com/2003/08/rdft > in August 2003. At that point in time the characters rdft stood for > RDF Templates as asserted by the owner of www.semanticplanet.com. I > can safely reuse that character sequence in the future without > changing the meaning of the original URI by including the date of the > new meaning. If I had chosen http://www.semanticplanet.com/rdft then > that character sequence is unavailable for all time, precluding me > from releasing the Roach, Dab and Flounder Taxonomy with a simple URI. Well, I myself prefer to use major version numbers rather than dates, e.g. http://www.semanticplanet.com/rdft-1/ which provide sufficient temporally ordered distinction between evolutionary milestones of a given vocabulary without having to be explicit about the dates. Minor versions of the vocabulary shouldn't introduce backwards incompatible changes with other minor revisions of the same major version, so all 1.x versions can share the same namespace. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 04:45:24 UTC