RE: status of rdf, rdfs, and owl ``namespace files''

Acceptable. Thank you for considering the proposal.

- Nick -

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jeremy Carroll [SMTP:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent:	Monday, June 30, 2003 7:38 AM
> To:	Efthymiou, Nick; www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: status of rdf, rdfs, and owl ``namespace files''
> 
> 
> Dear Nick
> 
> the RDF Core Working Group considered your suggestion that we should
> change 
> the namespace URIs for RDF and RDFS.
> 
> On the 11th April, we decided not to:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0207
> 
> Some discussion is reflected in say:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0153
> 
> for example
> > [[
> > Considering that:
> > 
> >   o the WG, have in multiple editions of WD's indicated its intention to
> 
> > not to change the URI REFS for the RDF and RDFS namespaces
> > 
> >   o the WG explicitly requested feedback on this intention
> > 
> >   o very little negative feedback has been received
> > 
> >   o there is significant cost and complexity in changing the namespace 
> > URI REFs
> > 
> > the RDFCore WG resolves
> > 
> >   o not to change the URI REFS for the RDF and RDFS namespaces
> > 
> >   o to ACTION the document editor's to make such editorial changes as 
> > are required by this decision
> > 
> > ]]
> 
> Bluntly: the WG considered your opinion as a small minority, sorry.
> Also apologies for the tardiness in conveying this to you. 
> 
> The changes made to RDF Concepts concerning this are the removal of the
> notes 
> asking for comments
> 
> see
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-URI
> spaces
> 
> I believe a similar change will be made to RDF Syntax (I am not 100%
> sure).
> 
> Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating
> whether this decision is acceptable.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 18:09:22 UTC