- From: Stephan Zednik <zednis2@rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:50:13 -0600
- To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
I think both options make sense. I will update the examples in the Note to ensure have declared namespaces. The Primer should be checked to ensure that all PROV-XML examples have defined namespaces in identifiers. Luc, do you feel the example documents in eg-40 should also be updated? --Stephan On Apr 16, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > PROV-ISSUE-666: Valid namespaces for all PROV-XML Examples [XML Serialization] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/666 > > Raised by: Stephan Zednik > On product: XML Serialization > > > While the examples probably XML-validate, many of them do not > satisfy the convention that "All PROV identifiers are expressed as QNames in prov-xml." > > for instance <agend id="ag/> require, either: > - a default namespace to be defined xmlns=MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "ex.org" claiming to be "http://ex.org", or > - a prefix to be added <agend id="ex:ag/> > > My preference is for the latter option. > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 01:50:36 UTC