W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2001

Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:01:25 +0100
To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <32567.987775285@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

My thoughts on this issue are based on my recent work making and
RDF/XML parser.  I started with working out what the M&S and RDFS
documents said about which bits of syntax can be attributes and ended
up with this reference:

So what could be in this prefix confusion area are:

'syntax only things'
  rdf:about / about
  rdf:aboutEach / aboutEach
  rdf:aboutEachPrefix / aboutEachPrefix
  rdf:ID / ID
  rdf:bagID / bagID
  rdf:resource / resource
  rdf:parseType / parseType

plus the defined RDF M&S properties:

  rdf:_n / _n 

[Using the RDF-like words RECOMMEND, ALLOW, REQUIRE here]

I propose we RECOMMEND the use of a namespace prefix for all
attributes but ALLOW the first set of 'syntax only' attributes to
appear unprefixed, when the element is in the rdf M&S namespace, for
compatibility with deployed RDF/XML.

For example these would be allowed:

  <rdf:Description xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"

  <Description xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"

But this would not be allowed:

  <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    <foo:bar about="http://example.org"/>

since the foo:bar element doesn't have the RDF namespace URI.

I'm not sure about whether the second list of RDF properties should
be allowed without prefixes.  I can see several alternatives:

1. RECOMMEND prefix, ALLOW without as above

2. Ditto but just for rdf:li and rdf:_n which are most common

3. REQUIRE prefix

I propose all RDFS schema properties are REQUIRED to have a namespace

Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 10:01:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:00 UTC