- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:58:23 -0500
- To: Alistair <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Alistair, I just noticed an issue in the way the current cookbook editor's draft refers to hash namespace URIs. Sorry for not explicitly raising this earlier, as I suspect that it may represent something fundamental in your view of vocabulary naming. In recipes 1, 3, 1a, and 3a the current editor's draft [1], rev 1.10 refers to vocabulary names as: For vocabulary ... http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1 ... defining classes ... http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1#ClassA http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1#ClassB i.e. the trailing '#' is consistently omitted from the vocabulary name. I claim this is a fundamental mistake and would argue it on the basis of both semantics and what the RDF core specifications state. The semantic point is that [1] should be the name of the vocabulary while [2] is the name of a document that might (should) describe that vocabulary. [1] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1# [2] http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example1 I believe that the terms "namespace name" and "vocabulary name" should be considered synonymous when they apply to URI references for use within the Semantic Web. This is certainly related to the discussion thread [3] (continued at [4], [5], and [6]) but I hope we can resolve this without forking those threads yet again. The RDF core specifications state [7] that RDF URI references are constructed by simple concatenation of the local name to the namespace name. There is nothing in the RDF specifications that endorse an inference that clients should insert a '#' under some conditions. The RDF specification [8] uses the phrasing "The RDF namespace URI reference (or namespace name) is http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# ... The RDF Vocabulary is identified by this namespace name ..." So it is a mistake for us to suggest in this cookbook that clients add a "missing" '#'. (I will raise a similar issue with respect to the SKOS Working Draft in a separate message.) I'd noticed this in the 2005-11-18 editor's draft [9] and thought it was simply a typo so I corrected it in rev 12. That change was subsequently reverted in rev 15 but I can't tell from your commit comment whether you'd intentionally reverted it or not. So I don't know whether you mean to draw some distinction here -- and if so we'd better explain that distinction with more words -- or whether simply adding the trailing '#' to the vocabulary names is acceptable to you. [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/thread.html#msg113 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/thread.html#msg129 [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/thread.html#msg6 [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/thread.html#msg0 [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Identifiers [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace [9] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/2006-01-18/ -Ralph
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 16:58:45 UTC