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

Is anyone seeing the irony here? What is the most significant benefit most
often cited for semantic technology? Flexibility.  We say and we believe
that to a large extent, with semantic technology, you can change things and
they won't break.  But here we are, locked into namespaces that nobody
likes and we cannot change them because things will break.

What are the limits of flexibility we are bumping into here? Can we extend
them?

Michael


On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
>


-- 

Michael Uschold
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
   http://www.semanticarts.com
   LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
   Skype, Twitter: UscholdM