- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 10:21:08 +0100 (BST)
- To: Jason Diamond <jason@injektilo.org>
- cc: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Jason Diamond wrote: > Hi. > > I noticed in the minutes from the last teleconfierence [1] that the > unprefixed attribute issues [2] has been "RESOLVED". I'd just like to get > some clarification on this. Does it mean that all unprefixed attributes will > "assume" the prefix of their owner element for the purposes of which > predicate will be used or which RDF syntactic "keyword" is desired? > > The following is legal according to the grammar: > > <eg:Class about="http://foo"> > <eg:property>bar</eg:property> > </eg:Class> > > but I've seen parsers report: > > <#genid1> rdf:type eg:Class. > <#genid1> eg:about "http://foo". > <#genid1> eg:property "bar". > > rather than: > > <http://foo> rdf:type eg:Class. > <http://foo> eg:property "bar". > > (Did I get my N3 right?) > > Under the new resolution, which one is correct? I'm assuming the first but > would personally prefer the second. The second is the intended interpretation; however, the use of unqualified attributes is deprecated.* Rather surprisingly, an unqualified attribute (in XML) doesn't inherit the NS of its element; nor is it implicitly qualified with the default NS. Instead, it lives in a global "unqualified" space. Yech. jan -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Axioms speak louder than words.
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 05:22:02 UTC