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

Re: Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:06:27 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23346.990785187@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Summary of comments received so far on
which is at meeting time-4 hours, so I can't promise to answer any
more of these.

Dan Connolly

Re #3, #4
  [[ What does "on input" mean?
  The RDF M&S spec doesn't specify software modules;
  it specifies a language. Resolution of
  this issue requires deciding, about some XML documents,
  whether they're in the RDF language or not, right?]]

I feel this is the what we say now (deprecate) versus what we say
later (fobidden).  I'm writing a set of statements for now, with
pointers to the future statements.  However see my comments below
about deprecation.

Proposes to make example
not be part of the RDF language (which has bare about etc.)

Asks WG to consider unprefixed attributes forbidden since 1999-02-22

However see Art's comments below.

Aaron Swartz

  [[I think the fact that you state: "A namespace prefix MUST be
  used..." and "unprefixed attributes from The List MAY be accepted."
  is sufficient.]]

Re #3:

   [[I don't know whether "the next RDF syntax document" is the one
     we're going to publish or the one after that. Perhaps this point
     can be separated from the rest of the document.

which I thought was discussed and answered in the last meeting -
obviously not.  It is the next one; we deprecate at the date whenever
this issue is closed and will be forbidden in the words in the next
formal document we publish - RDF WD/recommendation or whatever.

ISSUE: I hereby call for an issue on the wording of deprecation and
backwards compatibility so we don't have to conflate it or get
diverted from addressing issues.

Graham Klyne

Wants #3 dropped since #4, #5 capture issue.

Re #7 [[ not sure of the implications of the second sentence.]]
which is:
  [[Applications MUST skip the element containing such attributes and
    generate no statements for the entire XML element and content.
  -- #7 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0166.html

Art Barstow

#5 not necessary, already covered by #2

Wants #3,#7 dropped since RDF attributes can be used without an
namespace prefix.  This is due to:

  [6.19] Qname          ::= [ NSprefix ':' ] name

so actually the spec. allows non-namespace prefixed property names
although they are useless since you can't generate statements
compatible with the model!  Art says:

  [[We could argue about how useful a propName with no NSprefix is
  but there is probably lots of RDF with such propNames. And they
  were warned!]]

I feel they are useless and anyone who has been using them was asking
for trouble, and we should just drop them.

Art esp. wants #7 second sentence dropped like Graham.

Re #4, Art is torn on backwards compatibility versus Dan Connolly's
position above.

Brian McBride

suggests rewording of aboutEach* bit:
 [[Note that there are other issues relating to aboutEach and aboutEachPrefix.
  The resolution of those issues may affect the inclusion of these attributes
  in the List.

which is fine.

Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 06:06:34 UTC

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