- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:04:53 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, "team-rdf-chairs@w3.org" <team-rdf-chairs@w3.org>
On 29 November 2013 08:41, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > 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? It has RDF links to a French translation also in RDF/XML! But yes, 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? Whatever we do, let's do it in RDFa this time. Humans are at least as important consumers of schemas as computers. FWIW I think some of the adoption we saw back with the FOAF work (apart from being there early) came from having namespace URIs de-reference to (more or less) human readable documentation. Far too many schema URIs point at a ridiculously unreadable XML file that just gets saved to disk and can't be opened with any useful tooling. Dan > 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 09:05:24 UTC