- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:27:11 -0700
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
- cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "www-rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > > > > > > If unqualified attributes are allowed then there is a specific problem > with > > > cases where the element is not qualified in the RDF namespace. > > > > Unqualified attributes should only be allowed on elements that *are* in > the > > RDF namespace. This is the XSLT approach (see literal result element as > > stylesheet, in particular) > > > > So, no more problem, yes? > > The problem is that elements qualified by the RDF namespace and elements not > qualified by the RDF namespace must then be treated differently. I don't see this as a problem. Why would it be? It allows the most natural usage where possible (i.e. when using RDF-specific elements), but allows clean semantics where this more natural expression is not wanted. The main thing I dislike about the idea of "always qualify attrs" is that it leads to unnatural expression (this is, of course, IMO) in the common case of using RDF elements. > Try this: write out a grammar that allows your proposal, you will find that > it is simpler to qualify the RDF attribute names. No need. It is just obvious that there would be fewer lines/productions in the grammar using only qualified attributes. I think this is hugely irrelevant. The Python grammar is vastly more complex than the grammar for C, but guess which language most users tend to prefer actually *using*? I have written RDF processors in Python and XSLT, and all of them allow unqualified attrs in the case of using RDF elements, and mandate qualification otherwise. I can honestly say that this detail barely added a few minutes to the efforts. > It is simpler to have a single attribute name for a single use, e.g. > rdf:resource, rdf:ID, rdf:about, to be used regardless of the namespace of > the enclosing element. Maybe simpler for the RDF processor writer (though I'd argue that there is enough difference in difficulty to even merit consideration). However, I prefer to consider what's more natural for the user, which is why I've taken my position. > > > C: the reserved attribute names in an RDF/XML document always have their > > > special meaning, whatever the namespace of the element. > > > > Oh, but this would be beyond horrible. ... I'm not sure how C could ever > come into > > sane contemplation. ;-) > > what is so horrible? You should never get too attached to the name for a > thing, its just a name. Nothing bad will happen if you utter it. Interesting comment. I think there is a cultural difference here. I take names *very* seriously, whether in comp sci, in literature, in personal relationships, etc. But if no one is seriously advocating C, then no need to get into philosophy, eh? -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 23:31:39 UTC