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

Here we are complaining, but if this is the worst problem then I'll take
it! This is much ado about nothing.
 On Nov 30, 2013 12:25 PM, "Michael F Uschold" <uschold@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>