- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 15:42:09 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2002-12-21 11:18+0000] > > My take on this: > > The namespace > > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# > > is controlled by W3C. We can say that it does contain the name _:1 and it > does not contain the name _:01. I have never seen it suggested before that > _:01 was legal. I suggest that we make it clear in the vocabulary document > that it is not. In 1999, W3C published a recommendation that was all about the namespace called "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#". At that time W3C gave no hint that this namespace contained things named 'nodeID', 'datatype' etc. The spec was somewhat elusive on whether one could expect in the future for revelations about such things to be made. In 2001-3 we've revealed our view that there are other occupants of this namespace, ie. nodeID, datatype etc. I believe we need to decide whether to 'seal up' this namespace with the publication of our specs, or whether to allow the possibility that further occupants of the ns may be subsequently 'revealed'. Perhaps we can do this incrementally, by saying that the ns remains potentially open for future additions, but that we definitively assert that it doesn't contain anything with a name beginning with '_0'. In other words, we should decide whether we're claiming the RDF specs provide an exhaustive account of the things that are named in that namespace. Dan
Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 15:42:13 UTC