- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:44:28 +0100
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, <swag-dev@yahoogroups.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> <- So, to my original question (what to use as a namespace name), > <- I think that using an HTTP URI should probably be avoided, > > Sorry Sean, what were you suggesting as an alternative? Anything URI that has a non-dereferencing scheme, but has a central administration body. That'll be a URN then. Having said that, I don't see why a data:, URL couldn't be used, due to the level of specificity. IMHO, a tann: [1] would be ideal for this... naming an abstract concept directly without any particular resolution mechanism, although people are by now so dependent upon HTTP, it makes me wonder. That's why I was rambling a bit about using HTTP for namespaces - yes, all of this has been covered in depth before, and there have been endless circular debates, but these often end up disappearing down the theoretical rat-hole. The fact of the matter is, namespaces are being created all the time, as are terms, and we need to have some semblance of order - best practises and the like, to ensure we don't end up with a semantic melee. [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/02/tann/ -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 13:46:06 UTC