W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2021

Re: Request for feedback about RDF-star

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:17:44 +0100
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <7931931.NyiUUSuA9g@owl>
onsdag 24. mars 2021 10.20.44 CET skrev Pierre-Antoine Champin:
> We aim to mint a new
> IRI to be used with RDF-star. In your opinion, is it
> acceptable/desirable to propose its inclusion in the RDF namespace [3],
> or should we instead mint it in a separate namespace?

Good question! Here's my personal take:

First of all, I note that there exists a TAG finding on a similar question:
https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState.html
It encourages the authors of the namespace document to declare how they 
expect the namespace to evolve. It does not seem that the RDF namespace 
document does this, which is understandable, since the original RDF syntax 
recommendation predates that TAG finding. 

However, as Ora seems to be indicating the RDF Syntax Spec says:
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace

"Any other names are not defined and SHOULD generate a warning when 
encountered, but should otherwise behave normally.", which seems to 
indicate that the expectation is that the names is a fixed set.

I recall that the we went through some pains as the SKOS namespace changed 
in the last moments of the spec work, so there is some precedent for that 
too. I think it all went fine even though I had to change it in code that 
were in customer's hands.

I would tend to agree that the new name seems to belong in the rdf: 
namespace, I would be in favor of it being added there eventually.

Still the question remains as to what a CG should do, it could do the 
guerrilla tactics and use the rdf: namespace from the start (I wouldn't be 
offended), but given the RDF Syntax Rec's rather clear expectation, I think 
it is appropriate to wait. 

My suggestion is to mint a URI outside of the rdf: namespace, but make it 
clear in any notes or WDs that it is expected that it will change. Then, I 
think that the issue should be settled by a WG shortly before the 
publication of the Candidate Recommendation, as the CR is also a 
solicitation of implementations beyond the WG. In the interest of URI 
Persistence, it is appropriate that it is fixed by the time the world beyond 
the WG is asked to take note.

Cheers,

Kjetil
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2021 23:20:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:46:06 UTC