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

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

No surprise at the level of opposition to deprecating the namespaces 
(again, I point out in my defence that I raised it after someone asked 
me about it; as a stickler for persistence I'm happy with that outcome).

BUT... this thread has, I think, raised an interesting issue concerning 
the existing namespace documents. Taking the rdf schema as the example, 
it exists as a monolingual RDF/XML file. It sounds as if we could do better?

I'd really like to see more schemas with multilingual labels. A current 
example of that would be DCAT [1] which has its labels, comments and 
usage notes in 5 languages. I know that aspect is appreciated in many 
circles, I'm glad we've done it and hope we can see more of that 
(Sandro's creating a tool for helping with that). We already have the 
RDF Schema *spec* in 3 other languages [2] so one obvious thing to do 
would be to add the multilingual labels to the namespace docs as well.

We can do that without breaking anything - and I wonder, Richard, 
whether that might be an example of obstacle we could remove??

Documents in /TR space may not be edited at all, ever. Documents like 
the the rdf|s and owl namespace schemas *can* be, although obviously 
with extreme caution not to break anything. Which brings me back to the 
idea of a Community Group to look at that?

Phil.


[1] http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.ttl
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/2003/03/Translations/byTechnology?technology=rdf-schema

On 29/11/2013 07:21, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>> On 28 Nov 2013, at 23:10, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>> But I object to the idea of using schema.org - among other things, using a namespace rooted in a domain you don't control is a terrible idea.
>
> I control neither schema.org nor w3.org, so by that logic using either is a terrible idea.
>
>> And holding namespaces for RDF fundamentals is a long way outside schema.org's mission,
>
> I have some news for you. May I direct your attention to
> http://schema.org/Property
> http://schema.org/Class
> http://schema.org/domainIncludes
> http://schema.org/rangeIncludes
> http://schema.org/sameAs
> http://schema.org/additionalType
>
> That's a pretty good start and I'd like to see more.
>
>> whereas it seems an obvious thing to expect W3C to do.
>
> W3C does a fine job *holding* namespaces for RDF fundamentals. But that's not enough. W3C does a terrible job at removing obstacles to adoption that were designed into these namespaces in the distant past.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>

-- 

Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Friday, 29 November 2013 08:42:03 UTC