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: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 14:03:09 -0400
Message-ID: <008101c0e932$c9c76b20$c4cf79a5@preferreduser>
To: "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> Can the whole namespace-attribute `decision' be reconstructed with
> Brian's reference to XML namespace tying? Or are we determined to be
> dogmatic about the actual syntax? Wouldn't that simplify our long
search
> for consensus?

The fact is that many RDF documents are 'broken' (including most of
the examples in the recommendation) because of a fundamental
misunderstanding of the Namespaces recommendation.

I think that we should simply require all attributes in an RDF
document to be in a namespace. At the present time this means for
practical purposes that all namespace declarations be qualified, and
that all attributes be colonized.

Note however that we are saying nothing about the syntax. If there is
an update of the namespaces recommendation to some thing that is
clearer, RDF documents can then addopt that form.

this however brings up another point. How do we version RDF or
documents or the namespaces they use?

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?rdf version="1.0"?>
<?namespaces version="1.0"?>

If we are talking about changing things around then we are definately
going to have to address these issues, although i think they will
(should!) prove to be easy.

Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martyn Horner" <martyn.horner@profium.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Issue
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion


> Brian McBride wrote:
> >
> >....
> >
> > And thinking in terms of XML schema/infoset, the key thing we
require is
> > that attributes have an associated namespace.  I'm wondering
whether that
> > is the right level of abstraction to capture the requirement.
Right now
> > that means that prefix's must be used.  But if XML were to change
so that
> > there was another way to express namespaces for attributes, would
it be
> > desirable if we were neutral to that change.
> >
> > Brian
>
>
> This seems an eminently sensible remark to make at this juncture:
not to
> replicate modelling and notational considerations from the level
> below... and certainly not to adopt a syntactical convention that
may be
> bypassed by more fundamental changes elsewhere.
>
> Can the whole namespace-attribute `decision' be reconstructed with
> Brian's reference to XML namespace tying? Or are we determined to be
> dogmatic about the actual syntax? Wouldn't that simplify our long
search
> for consensus?
>
>
> --
> Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
> Profium (former name Pro Solutions), Les Espaces de Sophia,
> Immeuble Delta, B.P. 037, F-06901 Sophia-Antipolis, France
> Tel. +33 (0)4.93.95.31.44 Fax. +33 (0)4.93.95.52.58
> Mob. +33 (0)6.21.01.54.56
> Internet: http://www.profium.com
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 13:50:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:54 EDT