- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:23:52 +0000
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 9 Nov 2011, at 20:26, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: >> 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 > > Every evolution path I see from this leads to either fragmentation or unrealistic implementation demands. The options I see are: > a. do nothing. > b. gradual introduction of redundant short terms, followed by gradual redaction of longer names. -- good bye cardinality > c. international change-over day. -- all the air traffic control and clinical support systems relying on RDF will crash that day. > d. stake out short syntactic forms for use in turtle in SPARQL but leave the denotations the same. Consider the evolution path for unifying "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string: Both exist side by side in the wild and query authors have to deal with that. Increasingly, we will have systems that know that both are equivalent, e.g., those with D-entailment support and those with RDF 1.1 support. Both forms will continue to be deployed in the wild forever but which one to use will be merely a matter of taste. It would be the same with <http://n.w3.org/rdf/type> and <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>. Just replace “D-entailment” with “owl:equivalentProperty entailment” and “RDF 1.1” with “RDF 2.0”. Best, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 21:24:28 UTC