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

Re: rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:07:48 -0500
Message-ID: <02cb01c19a23$3e917ee0$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "www-rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> >
> > If unqualified attributes are allowed then there is a specific problem
with
> > cases where the element is not qualified in the RDF namespace.
>
> Unqualified attributes should only be allowed on elements that *are* in
the
> RDF namespace.  This is the XSLT approach (see literal result element as
> stylesheet, in particular)
>
> So, no more problem, yes?

The problem is that elements qualified by the RDF namespace and elements not
qualified by the RDF namespace must then be treated differently.

Try this: write out a grammar that allows your proposal, you will find that
it is simpler to qualify the RDF attribute names.

It is simpler to have a single attribute name for a single use, e.g.
rdf:resource, rdf:ID, rdf:about, to be used regardless of the namespace of
the enclosing element.

> > C: the reserved attribute names in an RDF/XML document always have their
> > special meaning, whatever the namespace of the element.
>
> Oh, but this would be beyond horrible. ... I'm not sure how C could ever
come into
> sane contemplation.  ;-)

what is so horrible? You should never get too attached to the name for a
thing, its just a name. Nothing bad will happen if you utter it.

Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 17:09:31 GMT

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