Re: policy for rdf: namespace? was Re: Vocab terms for owner, validFrom and validUntil

On 2012-05-18, at 12:21, Dan Brickley wrote:

> On 18 May 2012 12:24, Richard Cyganiak <> wrote:
>> Sandro,
>> I think the rdf: namespace should be managed just like the space: The only way to put new terms into the namespace, or modifying existing terms, is by chartering a WG and stating the scope of the namespace update in its charter.
>> (The RDF WG is chartered to update RDF Schema, and since the rdf: namespace currently is just a reflection of the contents of that document, an update to the namespace is trivially in scope for the RDF WG.)
> +1
> (If chartering a WG is too inefficient, that's a problem that should
> be fixed )

+1 to both points.

- Steve

> Dan
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> On 14 May 2012, at 22:45, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 00:21 -0400, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>>> We have created 3 terms for the PaySwarm vocabulary that we think may be
>>>> better off in the rdf or rdfs vocabulary. They have to do with
>>>> "resources" on the Web.
>>> Reading over this thread, I think we need a policy about what goes into
>>> the rdf: and rdfs: namespaces.   Until we have that, we can't sensibly
>>> decide about whether any particular terms should go there.
>>> I think it's fair to say whatever policy was used originally, in the
>>> 90s, is painfully out of date.  Since then, the lack of policy has meant
>>> the namespace has stagnated.
>>> Of course we're tremendously constrained by existing deployments, but I
>>> think it would be good to distinguish between what *should* be there as
>>> best practice, and what is merely there for backward compatibility.
>>> Also, as I've pointed out many times, I don't think the Semantic Web
>>> (even in the simplified vision) can possibly work
>>> until/unless clients are willing to allow for synonyms.  To say that
>>> there can only ever be one correct name for the things that rdfs:comment
>>> or foaf:Person names is ... unworkable.
>>>> The first is the canonical "owner" of a resource on the Web. Keep in
>>>> mind that this is different from dc:creator and those types of
>>>> expressions. It could be used to establish the owner of a financial
>>>> account (that uses a web address), a public key that is published to the
>>>> Web, or a variety of other pieces of information that "belong" to an IRI
>>>> identifier (like a person's identifier).
>>> I'd love to dive into the ontology-design questions here, but ... I
>>> think that's out of scope for this group.   I'm kind of baffled who
>>> might handle this.  A community group seems like overkill, but might be
>>> okay.  I think broad, upper-ontology concepts are tricky that way.
>>>> The second and third are validity periods for particular pieces of
>>>> information - like when is an offer for a good or service valid from/to?
>>>> When was a home address valid from/to? When was a public key valid from/to?
>>> This is also out of scope here, but IMO very relevant to GRAPHs, as a
>>> use case.
>>> Please read:
>>> I suggest some group of us put together a simple spec, and use a
>>> namespace like   We can publish it as
>>> a Web page, Submission, or some group's Note for now.
>>> I note that the GLD-WG is chartered to RECOMMEND a best practice for
>>> this, but hasn't dealt with it yet.  To do this right, I think the group
>>> has to understand bitemporal databases, since governments often need to
>>> publish data that holds for some time period, and yet will be
>>> amended/corrected at various times afterward.
>>>   -- Sandro
>>>> When describing resources on the Web, these three items seem like they'd
>>>> be vital for establishing ownership and information validity periods.
>>>> Should they go in the RDF or RDFS vocabulary?
>>>> -- manu

Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ

Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 12:08:01 UTC