- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:04:08 +0100
- To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, <public-rif-comments@w3.org>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Jie Bao" <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
On Jul 9, 2008, at 8:11 PM, Michael Schneider wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:12 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > [...] > >>> Another alternative is to define a completely separate namespace for >>> extra RDF stuffs, but I am not sure that is nice... > > What about "rdfx:"? (Analog to "javax".) This namespace would still > be under > the control of the W3C, but would allow different working groups to > put > stuff there, if it conceptually matches RDF(S)... or if these > working groups > simply cannot settle on a winner. ;-) I assume that all three > parties (OWL, > RIF, and RDF people) could pretty well live with this solution. No. > Now that I think about this idea, I wonder if it would have been a > better > idea to put RDF reification and collections under such an "rdfx" > namespace, > too... OMG, please, please no. Every namespace is a huge burden on authors and can cause a mess for tools, etc. It's amazing to me that we can stand to have the first two screens of a document be all abbreviation baloney when *we're a single organization (W3C)*!!!!!!! Good god, y'all (what is it good for) ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 21:04:49 UTC