[doap-interest] Some new terms for your consideration

[Edd Dumbill]

On 23 Aug 2007, at 14:15, Stuart Yeates wrote:

> I find it hard to believe that someone hasn't already specified this
> somewhere in an RDF vocabulary, in which case we should borrow it
> from there, rather than redefine it.

I'll respond in detail later, but this point touches on a  
philosophical difference between us.

One of the goals of DOAP is to be as easy to write as possible for  
non RDFers. This means for me letting the computer do the heavy lifting.

So, for the most part I want all the terms to be in the DOAP  
namespace, even if the DOAP schema has to say that the two terms are  
equivalent.

(This also has the advantage of making extensions easy to spot, as  
they're not in the default namespace.)

-- Edd