- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:38:16 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Here is a second attempt at rewording previous things from earlier
discussions and resolutions, firstly I'll review what we resolved
First resolution interpretation 1) in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0035.html
and second resolution items 1-4
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0036.html
was agreed as recorded in the minutes of the 2001-05-11 meting:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/att-0060/01-2001-05-11.html
Summarising and rewording the above. I propose we resolve:
1. The current RDF/XML syntax uses the following attributes
in the syntax (from my reference at
http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/notes/concepts.html )
List of RDF attributes (henceforth The List)
about aboutEach aboutEachPrefix
ID bagID resource parseType
li <_n>
subject predicate object type value
Discussion:
ISSUE: I propose we do NOT add the remaining concepts:
Seq Bag Alt Property Statement
- these are rdfs:Class-es and can never be used as attributes
RDF Description
- syntax only things that have no current use as attributes
2. The grammar will be corrected to require namespace-qualification
for all attributes for The List. A namespace prefix MUST be used
for these attributes, where the namespace prefix points to the
RDF URI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
The meaning of the attributes is defined by the appropriate RDF
M&S sections and is not modified here.
The changes to the grammar at
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#grammar
include modifying productions 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.11, 6.18,
6.32, 6.33 to have rdf: added before all the attributes. There
are almost certainly other changes to the grammar, as well as
changes throughout the rest of the document such as examples and
in-text mentions.
3. On input, processors MUST accept unprefixed attributes from The
List on any elements. These attributes must be processed
as if they were written with a prefix as defined in #2.
4. On output, processors MUST emit attributes from The List
with a namespace prefix; where the prefix is defined as in #2.
5. The unprefixed attributes are deprecated and MAY be forbidden in
future versions of the syntax.
Discussion: We may suggest that processors could emit a warning
on input optionally.
6. The grammar will be corrected to allow non-namespace
qualified RDF elements (NOT attributes) when a default XML
namespace is defined with an xmlns="..." attribute.
Discussion: For example
<Description xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
...
</Description>
is currently forbidden by production 6.3; it requires rdf:Description
7. Unprefixed attributes not on The List have no meaning in RDF
and MUST NOT be used to generate statements. Processors MUST
also skip the element containing such attributes and generate no
statements for the entire XML element and content.
Discussion:
This is consistent with existing words in RDF M&S describing
actions when unknown rdf: attributes are found:
[[ When an RDF processor encounters an XML element or attribute
name that is declared to be from a namespace whose name begins
with the string "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax" and the
processor does not recognize the semantics of that name then
the processor is required to skip (i.e., generate no tuples
for) the entire XML element, including its content, whose name
is unrecognized or that has an attribute whose name is
unrecognized.]]
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/ section 6
Some test cases of how the proposed change would work
Test Case 1
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/att-0070/01-rdf-ns-prefix-confusion-2.rdf
MUST return two statements (s,p,o form):
(http://foo, rdf:type, http://example.org/Class)
(http://foo, http://example.org/property, "bar")
Test Case 2
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/att-0070/02-rdf-ns-prefix-confusion-3.rdf
MUST return the same two statements.
I'm working on individual tests for each attribute on The List but I
want confirmation it is the definitive list.
Dave
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 11:38:18 UTC