W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2002

RE: rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:16:43 -0000
To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, "www-rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEMBCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I was not in the WG at the time the decision was made. But seeing no other
reply I will have a go.


If unqualified attributes are allowed then there is a specific problem with
cases where the element is not qualified in the RDF namespace.

In the other standards you mention, I believe that unqualified attributes
are used on elements that themselves belong to the standard's own reserved
namespace.

Hence, I think there was a problem with M&S and four possible solutions:

A: all attributes must be qualified
B: attributes of elements in the rdf namespace need not be qualified,
attributes of other elements should always be qualified
C: the reserved attribute names in an RDF/XML document always have their
special meaning, whatever the namespace of the element.

B and C both seem to be in tension with the XML Namespace spec. Unqualified
attributes do not share the namespace of their element. Whereas B would
equate an ID attribute on an rdf:Description element with an rdf:ID on a
foo:bar element. C conversely would suggest that RDF/XML can define the
semantics of an attribute which modifies something not in its namespace.

Jeremy




> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Uche Ogbuji
> Sent: 30 December 2001 20:10
> To: www-rdf-interest
> Subject: rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
>
>
> I've read the most recent syntax/grammar draft.  The grammar
> specification is
> very confusing, but it does look quite thorough.
>
> However, I am disappointed to still see no good justification for
> the decision
> the WG has made w.r.t.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
>
> I think that the decision to require fully qualified attributes
> in all cases
> (i.e. <rdf:Description rdf:ID="foo"> rather than <rdf:Description
> ID="foo">)
> is dead wrong.  But in the appendix, the only reference is to a
> "description"
> of the decision at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0
> 278.html which seems no more than an index of test cases given that the
> decision has been made.
>
> So is anyone privy to the mysteries of this decision willing to
> come forward
> and explain why the convention used in XSLT, XInclude, etc. was
> not followed
> for RDF?
>
>
> --
> Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
> uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
> Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
> 4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
> XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 07:17:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT