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 --Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 06:47:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:21 UTC