- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:34:14 -0500
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
* Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM> [2005-11-28 12:21-0500] > / Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu> was heard to say: > |> | Do I really need to write the Dublin Core URI multiple times? > |> > |> That would work. > | > | Yes, it would "work," but it would violate one of our strong > | requirements that we help users not duplicate data unnecessarily. If > | a user wants to upgrade from one version of Dublin Core to the next, > | he shouldn't have to go change all the Dublin Core properties used > | throughout every document. > > Interesting. I'm used to the argument that URIs are bad because > they're long and hard to type. Your argument above is for a level of > indirection, is that right? A layer of indirection that would have been useless in the case of Dublin Core btw. DC changed from using http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/ to http://pur.org/dc/elements/1.1/ ...but also changed the case of the properties, from 'Creator' to 'creator'. I don't know of another popular RDF namespace where, in practice, there are a large number of documents that could be upgraded with only a change to the URI part of a property name. Not DC, nor RSS1, nor FOAF, ... In general I discourage people from moving to a new namespace URI unless the vocab has changed significantly --- and that can often include property names. If the change is minor enough that it can be handled with a "search and replace", then why bother change the namespace URI in the first place? Dan
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 18:34:45 UTC