RE: RDF Namespaces and Attributes (again)

Hi.

> That's my interpretation. Our RDF processor accepts rdf: qualification of
> all RDF syntax "keywords", regardless of context. It generates unqualified
> "about" and "ID" IFF they are attributes of an rdf:Description, otherwise
> all keywords are rdf: qualified.  This unfortunately means I have to have
> special case code for typedNodes (must use rdf:about or rdf:ID),
> production
> [6.12] abbreviation, etc.

Given this:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="..." xmlns:schema="...">
  <rdf:Description about="http://subject">
    <schema:predicate resource="http://object" foo="bar" baz="quux"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Does your parser require the property element to be this: (?)

<schema:predicate rdf:resource="http://object" foo="bar" baz="quux"/>

Do you generate the following two statements: (?)

(http://subject, schema:foo, "bar")
(http://subject, schema:baz, "quux")

My preference would be to not assume that foo and baz came from the "s"
namespace and silently ignore those attributes. This lets you recognize RDF
"keywords" whether they are prefixed or not. This "rule" would only apply
within the scope of rdf:RDF.

> I don't think there is much we can do about the spec, since we
> don't want to
> make a change that invalidates existing RDF.  If there is a FAQ or Errata,
> we might deprecate the omission of the rdf: qualifier, and recommend that
> all keywords be qualified in all contexts.

But doesn't deprecated mean we still have to account for it for those people
who haven't yet heard they weren't supposed to take those kinds of
shortcuts?

> P.S. RDFMS trivia for the day: is the following well-formed RDF? What
> N-tuples should it produce?
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <Foo about="me" and="you" xmlns="schema:"/>

No. It's not in an rdf:RDF element.

This, however,

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="...">
  <Foo about="me" and="you" xmlns="schema:"/>
</rdf:RDF>

should also generate nothing, in my opinion. The "and" attribute is NOT in
the default namespace.

What's your interpretation?

Jason.

Received on Saturday, 30 September 2000 17:59:54 UTC