Modules namespace, slash vs hash about rml-core HOT 4 CLOSED

As agreed on the Community Group's meeting, we propose to go for option 3 (hybrid) to maintain the same namespace for all concepts but keeping differenciated the modules; and with slash, since with hash it would not be possible to split the modules in different files.

If you agree please let us know reacting to this message with 👍 ; else with 👎 -- and explain further why not in a comment below :)

from rml-core.

I am pro making the user only remember one prefix as much as possible, but also make each modules accessible independently, so option 3 feels most future-proof (modules can be versioned independently and also still used separately in different contexts).
I think slash vs hash still is open, e.g. https://docs.enslaved.org/ontology/ also combine independent modules for each version, using hashes (and I assume that's the same for SHACL extensions: https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-af/#SPARQLTarget). However, https://www.w3.org/wiki/HashVsSlash favorites slash, so I'm fine to use that as a reason to pick one or the other

from rml-core.

Agreed.

Note that with option 3, using a single namespace, IRI dereferencing of the ontology(s) using a hash strategy does not afford the ability to distinguish modules. With hash you could only ever serve a single document per namespace.

from rml-core.

We have an agreement around slash vs hash for all ontologies. Closing.

from rml-core.