- From: Marcel Fröhlich <marcel.frohlich@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:31:52 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHKA4LxEfFtD0JGby_r=ZtrQf+g3fBCLbiYuf896t8heS5WcKA@mail.gmail.com>
+1 Am Fr., 26. März 2021 um 10:20 Uhr schrieb Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>: > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 09:25, Pierre-Antoine Champin < > pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> 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. >> > My advice would be to do something new. Perhaps we could arrange for a new > short memorable ns at W3C that could be used for this? > > It isn't clear at this juncture whether RDF-star is the seeds of the next > generation of RDF, or a useful exploration. There are other approaches in > the broad area (e.g. Wikidata's data model, labelled Property Graphs) and > it is quite possible a future REC-track group might take another approach. > So presuming upon official inclusion into the main RDF namespace seems a > little presumptive of us, even if the hope is that things head in that > direction. It could also feel like unfair on the W3C team to have us say > "hey, millions of documents think that "foo" is in the rdf: namespace, how > about making that true?". > > Maybe there is something that could be said in the implementation guide > for software-creators to encourage it to be possible/easy to accept a > future term that *is* in W3C's RDF ns? > > It's always been an awkward namespace btw, and is one of the oldest XML > namespaces (the XML Namespace technology was designed at the same time, and > not without controversies). One reason it is awkward is that it contains > symbols that are used purely for the RDF/XML syntax designed back in 1997 > (rdf:Description), but also it is just horribly long and hard to remember. > > > >> 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 >> >
Received on Friday, 26 March 2021 10:35:23 UTC