Re: URI aliases for RDF terms?

On 2 Nov 2011, at 16:05, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> Either way I'm not a fan. Yes, the rdf:type URI is a bit ugly, but so is foaf:name. It's too late to change it IMHO.
> +1
> Excruciating precision is a cost of doing business in an unambiguous domain.

<> is no less precise than <>, but has significantly lower cost.

W3C has maneuvered itself into a dead-end by assigning uselessly verbose URIs to really important things. This is a roadblock for uptake in syntaxes where long URIs are expensive.

IMO W3C should:

1. Assign short URIs in a *single* namespace for all RDF and RDFS (and possibly OWL and XSD) concepts *now*
2. Leave it up to individual WGs to adopt those short URIs at their own leisure
3. Leave it up to implementers to add support for them already
4. The RDF WG should *not* do anything about them in RDF 1.1, but perhaps in RDF 2.0


Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 17:51:29 UTC