W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2000

RE: Namespace evolution.

From: Jason Diamond <jason@injektilo.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:58:43 -0700
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LAEMKGDBDFAKFNKPFEKLMEILCKAA.jason@injektilo.org>
I just found this document, "Using Dublin Core in XML" [1], also a Working
Draft but much more recent, that uses http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ as
the namespace. Thanks in advance to everyone who was going to point that
out. I still don't like the fact that it's version dependant.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Diamond
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 12:32 AM
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Namespace evolution.
> Hi.
> I'm confused. Again.
> The Dublin Core site contains a working draft entitled "Guidance on
> expressing the Dublin Core within the Resource Description Framework" [1].
> In it, the suggested namespace for the 15 DC properties is
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/.
> I recently came across an RDF file that claimed the namespace was
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/. I thought it was a typo at
> first but just
> to confirm that it was before making myself look stupid (too
> late), I tried
> retrieving the URL. Not only did it work (how cool is that?) but it also
> informed me of the existence of DC 1.1. Of course, it's been out
> for over a
> year and [1] is only a WD (also over a year old) but I was shocked to
> discover that the web's most prevalent metadata "schema" and one
> of the few
> real reasons to actually use RDF isn't even trying to be RDF-friendly.
> What I mean by that basically boils down to this: If properties
> are uniquely
> identified by the concatenation of their namespace and element/attribute
> name as specified in the RDF M&S, how are we supposed to know that
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/title ==
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title?
> Does the DC plan on releasing version 1.2 or higher? Shouldn't a version
> agnostic namespace be used for RDF purposes in case they do? (How about
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/rdf/? After all, both versions
> contain the exact
> same elements.) Why hasn't [1] been finalized? If I quit bitching
> about why
> nothing gets done and did it myself, would anybody listen? Or would they
> just redo it later?
> Speaking of namespace equivalency, a recent discussion on RSS-DEV
> [2] brings
> up the question of how we might be able to tell when two or more
> properties
> are "equivalent". Could an rdfs:isEquivalentTo (or such) core property be
> added to RDF Schema before it's recommendation? Or do we expect
> everybody to
> agree on their URI vocabularies?
> Jason.
> [1]
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/resources/dc/datamodel/WD-dc-rdf/
> [2]
> http://www.egroups.com/message/rss-dev/870
Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 04:01:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:25 UTC