- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 11:28:45 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>, "Birte Glimm" <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 21 May 2010, at 11:03, Ivan Herman wrote: > > On May 18, 2010, at 18:54 , Axel Polleres wrote: > >> Chime, all, >> >> I suggest to mark the URI for rif imports and namespace used still with an editor's note in section 7.1. >> Both, >> 1) I am not 100% happy with using the entailment namespace (http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/) which seems to indicate that this is a URI defining an entailment regime > > I agree. I am actually unhappy with this choice:-) and would prefer to avoid it. > >> 2) the rif:imports abbreviation seems to indicate that we mean the rif: namespace (http://www.w3.org/2007/rif) >> >> So, I suggest we add an Ednote just saying: >> >> "The namespace and URI used for rif:imports is still under discussion with in the group" >> >> for now. >> > > +1 > >> P.S.: Talked to the RIF guys today again in the RIF TC, they obviously want to review the doc (especially in case we reuse the rif: namespace) >> I am personally not so fond anymore of reusing the RIF namespace, since - as rif:imports has no semantics in RIF - that might be misleading. > > The problem is... where do we put it? > > - sparql namespace means that it is really really sparql specific, which it is not > - rdf or rdfs namespace would suggest that this belongs to the core functionality of RDF which is not > - ??? > > the rif namespace is still the most logical place... I think we can propose this and see what RIF thinks about it upon asking them explicitly for review... i n that sense, it would make sense to do that change even now already before the upcoming pub round, to get quick feedback. Still I am afraid it has some awkward corner cases, that might be considered unintuitive, I have no real better suggestion except a new namespace. As for the argument against a sparql controlled namespace... if it is not used by RIF, and not in the core functionality of RDF, I am getting afraid a bit we may need to ask ourselves, in what sense it is *not* sparal-specific? :-| Axel > Ivan > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 10:29:24 UTC