Re: Deprecate http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# in favour of /ns/rdf# ??

a) would only makes sense if the same was applied to 
   * the XML Schema Namespace
   * the OWL Namespace
   * doesn't address the issue mentioned by @cygri, 
     if one wanted to take this further: why not merge
     why not simply merge rdf: rdfs: and owl: into one namespace? (yeah, I know that this would affecf  owl:Class vs :rdfs:Class, but that could be solved along the way of merging the namespaces… which would anyways mean changing URIs, effectively.
b) would probably break tools

b) seems unfortunately a strong argument against all the potential benefits of a), so I am somewhat afraid it won't happen.

just my 2 cents,
Axel
--
Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres

On Nov 28, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> An idea has been floated and I'd like to assess the community's reaction. The rdf and rdfs namespaces are hard to remember (I always copy and paste, I guess you do too), but how do you react to the idea of deprecating those namespaces in favour of the much easier to remember http://www.w3.org/ns/rdf|s ?
> 
> For emphasis, there would be *no change* at all to the semantics of any term, but the existing semantics might be more clearly explained.
> 
> For:
> ====
> 
> 1. In addition to replicating the schemas at that namespace, more detailed usage notes could be added;
> 2. Multilingual labels, comments and usage notes could easily be added (this is something I'm really keen to promote);
> 3. You'd be able to remember the namespace.
> 
> Against
> =======
> 1. Everyone just copies and pastes and loads of tools have the namespaces built in so it's pointless.
> 2. Any copy or derivative work might cause confusion.
> 3. One person's clarity is another person's confusion, meaning that the promise of not changing the semantics might be hard to keep in some people's minds.
> 
> How it might happen
> ===================
> *IF* there is community desire for this then I would suggest that a Community Group be formed to take it on. Any publication of the schema in /ns space would have to make clear that the relevant standards remain untouched and normative so that if any errors are seen, then the /TR doc is the one to choose.
> 
> Good idea?
> Stupid idea?
> Great, count me in for the Community group?
> You are a moron, please don't ever suggest anything like that ever again?
> 
> If your answer is negative then I hereby deny all association :-) I'm just making a public version of something said to me in private.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Phil.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead (TBC)
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 17:14:40 UTC