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

Re: Issue #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 03:43:48 -0400
Message-ID: <011f01c0e813$1a70da00$f7ce79a5@preferreduser>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -- the cost of supporting both about= and rdf:about=
> in the future is significant: consider XPath queries
> like

Having been down this road in another context, I can concur that to
try and figure out what the author means, and then to try an support
it is almost undoable. (How does one decide whether the author really
meant 'about= ' or 'rdf:about='). Supporting both constructs is also
an unnecessary coding burden. Specs are meant to be succinct and not
open to interpretation, and the easiest way to ensure this in this
issue is to do as dan sugests.

<danc>I consider them forbidden since 19990222, and I ask the
WG to agree.

i would agree 100% with this, and would also second Dan's suggesstion
(made somewhere) that  we provide a simple tool to convert
uncolonizeded attributes to colonized attributes in existing rdf

I can volunteer to make a first pass at such a tool (as an internet
application? as a stand alone application?).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Issue #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

> Dave Beckett wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
> [...]
> > 3.  Unprefixed attributes are deprecated - they SHOULD NOT be used
> >     the syntax from this date and WILL be forbidden in the next
> >     syntax document.
> >
> > 4.  On input, unprefixed attributes from The List MAY be accepted.
> >     If accepted, these attributes MUST be handled as if they were
> >     written with a prefix as defined in #2.
> 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?
> My original 26 Apr 2000 message included a test case,
> taken from the spec [namspace declarations filled
> in here for completeness]:
> =========
>   <rdf:RDF
> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>         xmlns:s="http://example/stuff#"
>         xmlns:v="http://example/vocab#"
> >
>     <rdf:Description about="http://www.w3.org/Home/Lassila">
>       <s:Creator rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/staffId/85740"/>
>     </rdf:Description>
>     <rdf:Description about="http://www.w3.org/staffId/85740">
>       <v:Name>Ora Lassila</v:Name>
>       <v:Email>lassila@w3.org</v:Email>
>     </rdf:Description>
>   </rdf:RDF>
> =========
> The question is: is that document an RDF document or not?
> btw... it's also available at
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/04rs22/confusedPrefixes.rdf
> Whereas
> -- We have heard from an editor of the original
> spec that he never intended unqualified attributes
> to be part of the syntax
> -- tools that support the above syntax only
> do so because of buggy namespace support; they
> don't accept
> <otherNs:ClassName about="#xyz"/>
> but only
> <otherNs:ClassName rdf:about="#xyz"/>
> -- tools differ in their interpretation of
> unprefixed attributes in RDF in general
> and in the case of rdf:resource vs. resource in particular.
> -- the cost of supporting both about= and rdf:about=
> in the future is significant: consider XPath queries
> like
> <xslt:template match="/rdf:RDF/*[rdf:about="$myURI]">
> ...
> and try fidgeting with it to accept about= on elements
> from the RDF namespace. It's doable, but it's a pain.
> I propose that no, this is not an RDF document. It is
> not part of the language specified in the 19990222 RDF spec.
> Any suggestion that it does in the spec an error; I propose we
> update the errata page to say so and notify www-rdf-interest
> that any documents that use this syntax are in error.
> I just wrote a little XSLT transformation to make the fix:
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/04rs22/fixAttrs.xsl
> and documented it to some extent:
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/04rs22/#fixatt
> > I've tried to capture the concensus on deprecation but I'm unsure
> > it comes across in the above.  Specifically, #3 and #4 seem to
> > clash.  Do we allow unprefixed attributes for backwards comp. at
> > in future or forbid them in the future?
> I consider them forbidden since 19990222, and I ask the
> WG to agree.
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 03:31:36 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:53 EDT