Re: #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Jason Diamond wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I noticed in the minutes from the last teleconfierence [1] that the
> unprefixed attribute issues [2] has been "RESOLVED". I'd just like to get
> some clarification on this. Does it mean that all unprefixed attributes will
> "assume" the prefix of their owner element for the purposes of which
> predicate will be used or which RDF syntactic "keyword" is desired?
>
> The following is legal according to the grammar:
>
> <eg:Class about="http://foo">
>   <eg:property>bar</eg:property>
> </eg:Class>
>
> but I've seen parsers report:
>
> <#genid1> rdf:type eg:Class.
> <#genid1> eg:about "http://foo".
> <#genid1> eg:property "bar".
>
> rather than:
>
> <http://foo> rdf:type eg:Class.
> <http://foo> eg:property "bar".
>
> (Did I get my N3 right?)
>
> Under the new resolution, which one is correct? I'm assuming the first but
> would personally prefer the second.

The second is the intended interpretation; however, the use of
unqualified attributes is deprecated.*

Rather surprisingly, an unqualified attribute (in XML) doesn't inherit
the NS of its element; nor is it implicitly qualified with the default
NS. Instead, it lives in a global "unqualified" space. Yech.

jan

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Axioms speak louder than words.