W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2001

Re: #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 10:21:08 +0100 (BST)
To: Jason Diamond <jason@injektilo.org>
cc: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0105091019000.4145-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
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.
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 05:22:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT