- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 00:17:13 -0500
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Chris Waterson wrote: > Edd Dumbill raises an interesting question in: > > news://news.mozilla.org/8eeee1%24pgg2%40secnews.netscape.com > > Specifically related to: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0019.html > > The Schema and Syntax specification has some inconsistencies between the > "Formal Grammar". Specifically, rules [6.6] through [6.9], [6.11], and > [6.18] are not consistent with the examples used throughout the document > to illustrate RDF/XML. The differences seems to stem from a > misunderstanding of how XML namespaces apply to attributes. I just ran across this bug when implementing my XSLT-based parser. http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/04rdf-parse/ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000May/0009.html I reported it as a bug in the spec: rdf:resource="..." vs. resource="..." Dan Connolly (Wed, Apr 26 2000) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0019.html > What approaches have people taken with their RDF/XML parsers? I took the approach that: rdf:resource="..." works everywhere, and resource="..." is taken to mean rdf:resource="..." when the namespace name of the element is the RDF M&S namespace. the source code looks like: <xsl:when test='@rdf:ID'> <xsl:call-template name='rdfp:propertyElt_s'> ... <xsl:with-param name='subject' select='concat("#", @rdf:ID)'/> </xsl:call-template> </xsl:when> ... <xsl:when test='(namespace-uri() = $rdfNS) and @ID'> <xsl:call-template name='rdfp:propertyElt_s'> ... <xsl:with-param name='subject' select='concat("#", @ID)'/> </xsl:call-template> </xsl:when> In my bug report, I suggested that the BNF is just wrong, and the intent of the spec was clear from the examples: "I suggest you define the general case to be the rdf:resource case, and specify that for rdf:Description, an unprefixed attribute called resource should be treated as rdf:resource." > Although > Mozilla is currently "strict" in this regard, I'm leaning towards the > addage of being liberal with the input that we accept, and treating > (e.g.) > > <foo:bar rdf:resource="baz" /> > > as really meaning: > > <foo:bar resource="baz" />. > > Comments? I suggest you do it the other way around, so that <rdf:Description resource="bar"/> is taken as a short-cut for <rdf:Description rdf:resource="bar"/> I don't see any reason to "steal" the local attribute names "resource", "ID", "about", etc. from all RDF property elements. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2000 01:17:18 UTC