- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:10:08 +0200
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On May 25, 2011, at 11:02 , Andy Seaborne wrote: [snip] > >> I guess it may be possible to use a short name for the development >> time and change this on the last minute to switch to the old names >> but I would not favour that, personally; it may become messy on long >> run. Note also, that it should be possible, if we go for an RDF 1.1 >> route, to have a note added to the old RDF document making it >> 'editorially' obsolete when we publish our recs, see, for example, >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ >> >> _Personally_ I would go for RDF 1.1 with option #2. But that is my >> personal choice, with my staff contact or activity lead hat off... > > Sandro advised SPARQL-WG (yesterday) that that WG publish using /sparql11-query/ until REC then put it at /rdf-sparql-query/ to replace the version people find when looking for the REC. > Which just shows that the W3C Team is not a monolithic organization and the team people do not always agree on everything:-) More seriously: this is fine if we keep to the old document structure (which, I believe, is what we plan). If the structures become different (which was the OWL or the RDFa case) then these redirections may become a bit complicated... 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 Wednesday, 25 May 2011 09:08:04 UTC