W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Question on namespace confusion (more on Re: New syntax spec )

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:24:33 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010918112051.03c43e40@joy.songbird.com>
To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@allette.com.au>
Cc: "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 05:14 PM 9/18/01 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> > This was done due to widespread confusion about
> > namespaces and attributes.  Different deployed applications thought
> > that in
> >      <eg:property resource="http://example.org/resource2/"/>
> >
> > resource actually was eg:resource, others that it was
> > (default xmlns namespace):resource, and others recognised it
> > as the rdf special attribute that it is.
>
>Well, it is certainly not eg:resource nor defaultNamespace:resource
>(see 5.2 "Note that default namespaces do not apply directly to attributes.")
>nor rdf:resource, according to the namespaces spec.
>
>A local resource attribute on an element in another namespace might
>be RDF's resource, but it is never rdf:resource.
>
>Sorry for being really thick on this, but I tend to think the refactored
>RDF still does not strike at the heart of the problem I have: I know
>the XML layer, I know the namespace layer, but RDF by providing home-made
>grammars (whether syntax or information set) lumps together bits of the
>requirements from XML, Namespace and RDF without discipline.

Let's see if this helps:

RDF requires that every property used is identified by a URI + optional 
fragment identifier.  It defines a rule for constructing a such URI from a 
namespace-qualified attribute or element name used as a property.

If we allow unqualified attributes, how is the corresponding URI to be 
constructed?  I think a satisfactory answer to this question might allow 
the restriction to be reconsidered.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2001 07:19:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:28 GMT