- From: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:49:19 -0500
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Damian Steer <pldms@me.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, team-rdf-chairs@w3.org
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 10:08 -0500, David Booth wrote: > On 11/28/2013 10:20 AM, Damian Steer wrote: > > The issue is that they're hard to remember for authors, mostly, so we'd be better off saying: > > > > * rdf and rdfs prefixes are always bound to (whatever they are :-) > > * rdf and rdfs prefixes may not be bound to anything else > > * parsers should issue a warning if a document attempts to override them > . . . with a different URI, I assume you meant. > > > > Which is backward compatible, and requires little effort from library vendors. > > Excellent, practical suggestion! Amidst all the other discussion, I > don't think this suggestion got the attention that it deserved. I would > add one more requirement also: > > * parsers should issue a warning if rdf: or rdfs: are used with terms > that are not defined in the RDF or RDFS specs (respectively). > > That would detect mistakes like writing rdf:label instead of rdfs:label. > Is that the role of the parser or the editor? While baking this into the parser would help. I think identifying (writing mistakes) as they are written is best. On that note: GEdit has been highlighting[1] the correct namespace and terms for rdf/rdfs/owl for almost five years now. Anybody interested in helping with the latest round of formats (sparql 1.1, turtle, etc) highlights? [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583209 James
Received on Friday, 29 November 2013 15:49:50 UTC