Re: Future Proofing of "rdf:type" Considering HTTP and HTTPS

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 at 17:17, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > However, since the w3c name spaces treat HTTP and HTTPS as equivalent,
> this may not be a major concern.
>
> I don’t think that is correct, in RDF terms at least?
>

Having helped create rdf: and rdfs: namespaces my expectation is that it
ought to be safe to expect W3C to treat https as just another way to access
rdf:type. TimBL has a note somewhere arguing that a transition to TLS could
have been accomplished without moving everything to the https URI scheme.
At some point it could all be tidied up, but I wouldn’t worry too much
about rdf:type etc going away.

Dan



>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Frans
>>>
>>> Op ma 17 apr 2023 om 15:25 schreef Melvin Carvalho <
>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> As you are well aware, the "rdf:type" property is part of RDF Schema,
>>>> helping us specify the class or category to which a particular resource
>>>> belongs. The current URI for "rdf:type" is based on the HTTP protocol, but
>>>> as the web continues to evolve, many websites and schemas are transitioning
>>>> to HTTPS for increased security.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, I recall that Schema.org made the switch from HTTP to
>>>> HTTPS a while ago. This made me wonder about the future-proofing of
>>>> "rdf:type" and its continued relevance in the face of potential protocol
>>>> upgrades.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, I have the following questions:
>>>>
>>>>    1. How future-proofed is "rdf:type" given its dependency on the
>>>>    HTTP URI?
>>>>    2. What would be the potential implications if the "rdf:type"
>>>>    property were to change from HTTP to HTTPS?
>>>>    3. Are there any possible steps that can be taken to mitigate this
>>>>    change when working with the semantic web today.
>>>>
>>>> thoughts and guidance on this issue will be greatly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>