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

On 11/28/2013 09:57 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> This is absolutely necessary. And at the same time, it’s completely impossible, for the reasons that others will state in responses.
>
> A way forward: slowly migrate the useful terms from the RDF, RDFS and OWL namespaces into the schema.org namespace, or into some virgin namespace that’s not under w3.org.

In my opinion, the best way out of this dilemma is to get sameAs 
reasoning deployed in all RDF consuming systems.   That will be 
difficult, but it solves a lot of other problems, too.   When we have 
that, it will be easy to move (or actually *copy*) all the useful bits 
of rdf: and rdfs: into one place.      Until we have that, I think we're 
stuck on a lot of fronts.

On the issue of the user experience which comes from dereferencing these 
namespaces, yes, absolutely we can and should do something about that.   
I'll be working on an improvement on it over the next few days, and then 
will welcome feedback and contributions. Actually, right now, I'd love 
comments (with a different subject, off-list if you like) about what the 
HTML version of a namespace document should look like.    Consider the 
foaf one as the starting point -- what might be an improvement over 
that?   Happy to have a CG, if folks are up for extended conversation.

      -- Sandro

> Best,
> Richard
>
>
>
> On 28 Nov 2013, at 14:27, 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 Friday, 29 November 2013 17:05:44 UTC