- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:43:04 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 25 May 2011, at 10:05, Ivan Herman wrote: >> We also need to think about managing / evolving the (currently >> CVS-archived) namespace documents for RDF and RDFS. > > I would expect those to stay in CVS space and we will just update those. Eric, Sandro or I can update them at any time if needed. > > 'If needed' is the key here: unless we add new terms (eg, a new datatype...) then those files should be o.k., though I would probably produce a turtle version for both I'm strongly in favour of putting some proper content-negotiated human- and machine-readable documents at the rdf: and rdfs: namespace URIs. To be honest, it's quite a disgrace that W3C is ignoring its own best-practice advice [1] and still publishing RDF like it's 1999... This is already raised as ISSUE-39 [2]. Given that this is issue is cutting across specs, it might make sense to appoint a WG member to own this issue. Sort of an “Editor of Authoritative Representations”, in the HTTP sense... Best, Richard [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/39
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 10:43:33 UTC