Re: Re: [PEPr] +1 for RDF::RDF
| From: | Lukas Smith | Date: | Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:57:19 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [PEPr] +1 for RDF::RDF | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-32850@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Paul M Jones wrote:
ok so you prefer just having a category RDF. fine by me too actually there is already competition .. topic maps come to mind. however there is nothing wrong with having multiple category prefixes for one category. we already have plenty of examples of this. its certainly a solution to having an endless prefix orgy as even how things are now I have pretty long class names. regards, LukasSo RDF will become a category prefix for the new category "Semantic Web".Disagree; if a new or better Semantic Web technology appears, then it will needs its own new top-level. If we're going to have Semantic Web stuff, it should be a like-named category (perhaps SemWeb, or just Semantic, or even the full Semantic Web). Yes, it's just naming, but names are important.