Re: Definitions of namespace IRI/prefix added to RDF Concepts (was: Re: Ambiguity of "RDF namespace")

On this point, the 2004 RDF primer has this to say:

"In the rest of the Primer, the term vocabulary will be used when referring to a set of URIrefs defined for some specific purpose, such as the set of URIrefs defined by RDF for its own use, or the set of URIrefs defined by example.org to identify its employees. The term namespace will be used only when referring specifically to the syntactic concept of an XML namespace (or in describing the URI assigned to a prefix in a QName)."

Seems to me that we just need to be careful to not remove this, and we should still be OK.

Pat

On May 12, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> 
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:05:42PM +0200, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> There is a new section in the RDF Concepts introduction called ?RDF Vocabularies and Namespace IRIs?:
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#vocabularies
>>> 
>>> It adds new (informative) definitions for the terms ?namespace IRI? and
>>> ?namespace prefix?, points out that they're useful for abbreviating IRIs,
>>> and points out that the term ?namespace? on its own has no well-defined
>>> meaning in an RDF context.
>>> 
>>> I'm not quite satisfied with it ? it reads a bit like something that belongs into the Primer.
>> 
>> I feel the same way. I would propose to keep it in the document so that we
>> would not loose it, but add a note that this section will, possibly, move to
>> a renewed primer.
> 
> This is looking good.  Maybe the test should be that if "namespace" is used
> anywhere in the formal RDF specs -- except where reference is made specifically
> to "XML namespaces" -- it should be included in RDF Concepts.  If it is _not_
> used in the specs, then it could go into the Primer (and this section could be
> renamed "1.4 RDF Vocabularies").
> 
> One small point: instead of 
> 
>    but is sometimes incorrectly used to mean “namespace IRI” or “RDF vocabulary”
> 
> perhaps:
> 
>    but is sometimes informally (and ambiguously) used to mean “namespace IRI”
>    or “RDF vocabulary”
> 
> ...the point being that if something does not have a well-defined meaning,
> who's to say it is being used "incorrectly"? ;-)
> 
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes