Re: towards closure of issue: rdf-namespace-change

I was fine with this until I noticed DanC's comment.  Here's some suggested 
extra text to replace your first point:

- that it does NOT intend to create new namespace URI references to name 
the RDF Schema namespace[1] and the RDF model/syntax 
namespace[2].  Although there have been changes to the definition of some 
RDF vocabulary in this namespace, we believe the changes do not change the 
meaning of any existing RDF for which there is an unambiguous and 
widely-used meaning.

#g
--


At 11:24 AM 4/26/02 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:

>I propose we close rdf-namespace-issue as follows.
>
>Is this enough to close the issue or does someone need to write the text
>for the specs? Anyway, this should be enough for discussion at a telecon.
>
>
>
>The RDF Core WG resolves...
>
>- that it does NOT intend to create new namespace URI references to name
>the RDF Schema namespace[1] and the RDF model/syntax namespace[2].
>
>- that we solicit feedback during Last Call from implementors and content
>   producers on this decision, acknowledging that while there have been
>   changes to the specs associated with [1] and [2], there are also
>   significant costs associated with moving RDF to use new URIs.
>   (@@ also ptr to charter which has nice words on this tension)
>
>- that we do not know at this stage whether the RDF Core specs will change
>   further as a result of Last Call feedback, and consequently make for a
>   more compelling case for namespace change.
>
>- that the final RDF Core RECommendations will set clearer expectations
>   about the impact of subsequent revisions to RDF on the use of these
>   namespaces.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
>[2] http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 07:00:40 UTC