- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:10:33 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Graham Klyne said: > > Short response: > > I think we're moving toward using rdf:... rather than rdfs:..., and I'm > happy with that. <snip/> I'm not. The main reason: the more we *add* things of significance to the RDF namespace (not syntax construction machinery such as rdf:datatype, rdf:nodeID) and the RDF namespace URI RDF Schema document, the more likely the URI of the namespace will have to change since the namespaces's meaning has significantly changed. (I did ask that rdf:List etc went in the RDFS namespace). If that happens, we cause all existing RDF/XML files (and RDF graphs) to no longer be RDF/XML (revised) files / RDF-revised graphs. Then we have made a new XML syntax and a new RDF, RDF2. Which was not our charter. For me, all new things go in rdfs: unless there is a very good reason. Maybe explaining RDF vs RDFS 'layers' or entailments is a good enough one. I can't see how that would help work out where rdf:Datatype should go, since it isn't clear if it is 'core' RDF or RDFS semantics. Dave
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 15:11:39 UTC