Re: vCard in RDF

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Apart from that http- vs non-http URIs debate, no I don't know of any
> technical reason to use separate namespaces.  For OWL 2 XML [1], Bijan
> Parsia pushed for using the same namespace for both OWL syntaxes, and
> while some of us were slightly concerned about it, no one in the Working
> Group, or among the reviewers, could come up with an actual problem with
> this practice.

Me neither, but one never knows.

> Of course, that http- vs non-http URIs  issue makes this a non-starter,
> unless we can get the IETF to change to an http URI, as below.  I'd
> object to the RDF version not using an http URI.

One can ask, but collaboration usually requires compromise.

There are deep-seated social and trust reasons that some in the IETF prefer IANA 
registry based URNs to http: URIs.  Just as many in the library community prefer 
DOIs.

In the final analysis, which does the greater harm:  using two different 
namespaces for essentially the same information, or using a namespace that is 
not directly dereferenceable by a common browser?

I note that the DOI community have a convention of mapping DOIs to http: URIs - 
maybe this is a form of compromise that can be a basis for closer collaboration?

#g
--