- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 12 Nov 2002 18:08:34 -0600
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 03:29, Brian McBride wrote: [...] > That settles it then. It stays where it is for now. This is clearly new information since our 9Sep datatypes decision and our May decision on literals. Please reopen them. On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 14:10, Dave Beckett wrote: > > >>>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 ??? I can't get my head around that phrase... "namespace's meaning". > has significantly changed. (I did ask that > rdf:List etc went in the RDFS namespace). You have to be able to build an RDF parser without ever seeing the RDFS spec nor the RDFS namespace name, true? And an RDF parser has to generate triples including the terms first/rest/nil/List and now XMLLiteral, no? > > 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 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:09:08 UTC