- From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:05:25 +0000
- To: James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Damian Steer <pldms@me.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, team-rdf-chairs@w3.org
I suspect (hope) that very little of this is written directly in an editor. So you would need to (for example in my case) bake it into the vi php mode for recognising strings. That is, vi would highlight a string in php code in which the wrong prefix was used. Not that I am arguing that standard parsers gain much from having this stuff in for the most part, as no-one is connected to the output to look at it, other than some consuming agent. But having the option when it is invoked by a human directly is probably no bad thing. On 29 Nov 2013, at 15:49, James Leigh <james@3roundstones.com> wrote: > 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 -- Hugh Glaser 20 Portchester Rise Eastleigh SO50 4QS Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155, Home: +44 23 8061 5652
Received on Friday, 29 November 2013 16:06:00 UTC