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

Re: Request for feedback about RDF-star

From: jerven Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@sib.swiss>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 16:25:27 +0100
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <0132cb3f-5d88-e192-8b77-fcf9a01ee76b@sib.swiss>
Dear All,

My personal opinion is. Go for it, just add a term to the
rdf namespace. Sure it won't resolve for now but it wouldn't
be the first IRI that doesn't.

If a WG later decides that yes they want to really add to the
existing file they can. Otherwise no real damage done.

If a WG decides that it should be a different IRI then the
result is almost the same as if we do an x-rdf/different namespace


On 24/03/2021 10:20, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Dear Semantic Web community,
> as you may already know, an informal "task force" has been created in 
> the RDF-DEV Community group [1], in order to produce a specification 
> document for RDF-star (née RDF*) [2]. RDF-star extends RDF with native 
> support for talking about RDF statements (as an alternative to standard 
> reification), and already has a number of implementations. The goal of 
> this work is to help ensure that all implementations are actually 
> interoperable (which is not quite the case at the moment). Once this 
> specification reaches a stable state, and provided that we get enough 
> interest from RDF implementers and users, we will try to push it to 
> Recommendation track.
> We require your feedback on the following question. 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? We could not 
> really reach consensus in the group, hence we wish to get more opinions 
> from the larger community.
> We understand that, as a Community Group, we have no authority to 
> /actually/ update the namespace (this would be done only by a future 
> WG). But if we succeed in bringing this to a REC, changing from 
> rdf-star:X to rdf:X at that point will be impossible in practice 
> (remember the "0.1" part in FOAF IRIs?). And we also want to avoid 
> repeating the confusing namespace dichotomy of rdf: and rdfs:. If we 
> don't make it to a REC, this will mean that RDF-star is not widely used 
> anyway, and so our "polluting" the RDF namespace will have had no real 
> impact.
> Some people in the group, on the other hand, feel that the RDF namespace 
> should considered fixed (although other specs have already added terms 
> to it [4,5]), or that the semantics of RDF-star is not stable enough.
> The whole discussion can be found in the minutes of our call [6].
> Thanks in advance for your feedback.
>    pa
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-dev/
> [2] https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/
> [5] https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/
> [6] https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-03-12.html#t04


	*Jerven Tjalling Bolleman*
Principal Software Developer
*SIB | Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics*
1, rue Michel Servet - CH 1211 Geneva 4 - Switzerland
t +41 22 379 58 85
Jerven.Bolleman@sib.swiss - www.sib.swiss
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2021 15:25:44 UTC

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