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

Re: Issue #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:35:27 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Message-ID: <27556.990635727@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Aaron Swartz said:

> I understand this -- what I don't see is why we can't state that they MUST
> be ignored, rather than destroying the whole chunk of RDF that contains
> them.

  1. They are already forbidden by the existing grammar rules - you
     must have namespace-qualfied properties.

  2. Existing systems handle them in different ways (die, use them
     wrong, ignore them)

  3. They have no meaning in RDF since they have no link to URIs.

  4. To clear up that RDF uses namespaced-prefixed
     elements/attributes only, so non-namespaced attributes are
     obviously non-RDF and hence the meaning of RDF elements such
     attributes is totally undefined.

     If there was a situation where non-prefixed attributes were
     wanted to be transferred in RDF/XML it would be better done
     using prefixed attributes and the namespace URI to define the
     new terms.

> Dave Beckett said:
> > We discussed that subsequently during the meeting and agreed to make
> > the stronger deprecation point - deprecated now (SHOULD NOT) and tell
> > the developers so that they know it will be removed and forbidden
> > (MUST NOT) at next REC which is probably a year away.
> I do not see what this refers to in your proposal. What I was talking about
> was exactly the opposite:
> <q 
> cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0087.html">
> 3.  On input, processors MUST accept unprefixed attributes from The
>     List on any elements.  These attributes must be processed
>     as if they were written with a prefix as defined in #2.
> </q>
> This MUST should be changed to a MAY, so that processors need not accept
> documents with unprefixed attributes. RDF itself should remain strong,
> continuing to state that "A namespace prefix MUST be used for these
> attributes...".

This is different issue.  I was talking about the rewording that I
would be doing after the meeting based on the notion of 'deprecation'
as discussed - giving developers due warning of things that would be
going away.

Your quote refers to a different thing that Dan Connolly asked for -
changing MUST to MAY in item 3 and in the minutes of the meeting we
were both at, it was recorded I agreed to do this:

  DaveB reflects Dan C.'s comments about using the term "must" and
  suggests changes to "may" in describing solutions to this problem.

  The notion of 'deprecation' of previous work was discussed...

  General consensus was that Dave B. would re-word this to reflect this
  notion of deprecation in this position

> > In summary, based on what existing tools do and for consistency, item
> > 7 remains a good answer.
> I don't see that from your message.

I hope 1-4 above and the previous messages help.

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 12:35:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:48 UTC