W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2001

Re: Followup on rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 18:01:36 +0100
To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <30657.989427696@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Art Barstow said:
> My apologies for missing the Apr 27 meeting.  I scanned the IRC
> log and I have a question about what the WG decided wrt the
> rdf-ns-prefix-confusion issue:
> 
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
> 
> My input for the this issue was given in:
> 
>  [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Apr/0047.html

<snip/>  Replied to below


> In the meeting log:
> 
>  [3] http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-04-27.html
> 
> it says:
>   
>   [[
>   RESOLVED:  strongly recommend namespace qualified attributes, allow but str
    ongly deprecate unqualified attributes
>   ]]
> 
> Does this mean that instead of changing the grammar as recommended 
> in 1. in [2], that some text like that which is found in the IRC
> log (RESOLVED: strongly ...) will be added to the spec?


I'll try to make a more formal list of what I see as the results of
the consensus at the first meeting on this issue.

1.  The grammar will be corrected to require namespace-qualified
    attributes for RDF concepts [leaving aside for now how the
    grammar will be expressed].  Namespace prefixes MUST be used on
    RDF attributes.

2.  Existing parsers MUST accept the about, id etc. attributes in
    unqualified form on input but MUST NOT emit them on output.

3.  The unprefixed attributes are deprecated and MAY be forbidden in
    future versions of the syntax.


Replying to the W3C team comments in
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Apr/0047.html

  [[1. The grammar in section 6. of the M&S spec:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#grammar

    should be changed so that all of the RDF attributes (e.g. about,
     resource, etc.) are qualified with a RDF namespace.
  ]]

This was agreed and I think covered in items 1-3 above

  [[2. Text along the lines of the following should be added to the M&S spec:

    All elements and attributes in RDF must be namespace qualified
  ]]

I felt the consensus was that the elements part of the above text was
not quite right (since elements can have default namespaces).  The
grammar does need correcting here to reflect that so another item:

4.  The grammar must be corrected to allow non-namespace qualified RDF
    elements when a default XML namespace is defined (xmlns="...").

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 13:01:44 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:46 EDT