Re: rdfs:Datatype vs. rdf:Datatype

Fair enough. 

Patrick

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 21 October, 2002 12:42
Subject: Re: rdfs:Datatype vs. rdf:Datatype 


> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> >
> > >>>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.
> 
> I agree entirely. Goofing around with the 1999 namespace too much (for
> some measure of excess) is impolite. I think we can get away with it a
> little since the M+S spec didn't say much one way or the other about the
> contents of its namespaces. Putting new classes and properties into RDFS's
> namespace is cleaner, changing '99 only to reflect syntactic fixes to RDF/XML.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> -- 
> mailto:danbri@w3.org
> http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
>

Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 05:45:39 UTC