[doap-interest] Some new terms for your consideration

[David Reid]

Edd Dumbill wrote:
> 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.

Given some of my experiences with RDF I find myself 1000% in agreement
with this stance...

> 
> (This also has the advantage of making extensions easy to spot, as
> they're not in the default namespace.)
> 
> -- Edd
> 
> _______________________________________________
> doap-interest mailing list
> doap-interest at lists.gnomehack.com
> http://lists.usefulinc.com/mailman/listinfo/doap-interest
> 
> !DSPAM:16,46cd8a9c126705390749659!
> 
>