- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:22:15 +0100
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com said: > > > Regarding terminology that is easiest to parse, and also in the > interest of a clear distinction between the datatyping vocabulary > from other RDF/S vocabulary, I propose the following: > > xmlns:rdfd="http://www.w3.org/2002/rdf-datatyping/" > > rdfd:type > > rdfd:Datatype No thanks. With my parser-writer's and syntax editor's hats on, in terms of parsing, adding a new namespace is not easier. We already have all the other syntax-related terms in the rdf: namespace. Please just pick your favourite name to use in rdf: from this list, I can add it to the rdf namespace, add it to the rdf/xml syntax and we can move on: rdf:lType rdf:dType rdf:lexicalForm ... Please. I'd also suggest that rdfs:Datatype was better, it is where (most) core RDF(S) vocabulary lives and where we have been updating non-syntax-related vocabulary. I don't see any particular reason to add a new namespace, now that we are basically putting datatype support in core RDF. It seems odd now that we have what seems to be consensus for that choice. <snip/> > User's simply have to keep straight the namespace, whether > they are working with datatypes rather than "plain" RDF > types, and choose rdfd:type over rdf:type accordingly. rdfd:type vs rdf:dtype - not much difference there. Adding a third namespace means you have two wrong choices for any term. Also two 'type' words is bad; I guess I'm prefering a new rdf: name without the word 'type' in it. <snip/> Dave
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 06:24:20 UTC