- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:26:31 -0600
- To: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>, RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net> wrote: >> The RDFS spec states: "this specification recommends that a new namespace <- >> URI should be declared whenever an RDF schema is changed." (Other than <- >> confusing namespace URIs with schema URIs) this statement is a <- rather >> silly <- requirement. > Personally, I can't see a problem with this - if the schema changes, then it > becomes a different schema and so should have a different namespace URI. If > it's only a matter of comments, or even if there are significant changes but > it is backwards compatible, then this may not be necessary - note the use of > the word 'recommends'. The statement allows for common sense. Ahh yes -- if that were the only issue, I wouldn't be upset. But the spec also "recommends" that RDF-based systems can cache a schema indefinitely (which I read as "until the next Ice Age") which means that you're effectively stuck: - Change the URI and non-RDFS-aware systems don't understand you - Don't change the URI and RDFS-aware systems won't get the new version What do you do? I think the restrictions here should be on software (be smart enough not to screw things up when a schema changes -- ignore new versions if you have to), not on schema developers (don't change a schema). -- Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| RSS Info <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://www.blogspace.com/rss/> AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| news and information on the RSS format
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2001 09:26:43 UTC