W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: rdfs:Datatype vs. rdf:Datatype

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:33:06 +0100
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <14441.1035192786@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Patrick Stickler said:
> Seeing as how datatyping is now a part of the RDF core
> rather than a part of RDFS, should we change rdfs:Datatype
> to rdf:Datatype?

We have to tread as carefully as possible since we want to be able to
justify keeping the rdf: namespace URI the same.  If it seems the rdf
namespace gets too many new semantic terms (Properties and Classes)
then the namespace looks increasingly like it would have to change.

At present, we've removed some syntax things - rdf:aboutEach*
and added some new syntax things - rdf:nodeID, rdf:datatype, so
we are on the line.

If we were changing the namespace(s), we'd surely split the rdf/xml
syntax terms / semantic terms completely.  But not in this round of
specs and not at this stage in document writing.

Just my thoughts.

Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 05:33:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC