Re: Pending vocabulary issues + further proceeding

From: Emmanuel Pietriga <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:00:37 +0200

>> As far as this PREFIX problem is concerned, I haven't given it much
>> thought yet. Did we agree on how to declare these in Fresnel? I don't
>> think so.
> Something else for the issues list then. I thought we had tentatively
> agreed on what's in the examples, that every FSL expression would have
> to carry PREFIX information with it. I don't recall if our other
> alternatives were still under consideration.

The only other proposal I recall was to explicitely declare NS prefix
bindings as triples in the RDF model of the Fresnel stylesheet.

Advantage of this solution: compared to PREFIX, you declare prefixes
once and for all. Drawback: it tempers with the Fresnel stylesheet's RDF
model, and it duplicates prefix binding declarations.

Advantage of PREFIX solution: we don't temper with the RDF model.
Drawbacks: you have to declare all prefixes you need for every single
FSL expression, thus you get much more than a mere duplication of such

Both are so bad that I can't really be in favor of one or the other. But
we have to do something about this. And I don't want to allow both.

Emmanuel Pietriga
INRIA Futurs - Projet In Situ    tel : +33 1 69 15 34 66
Bat 490, Université Paris-Sud    fax : +33 1 69 15 65 86
91405 ORSAY Cedex  
Received on Tue May 24 2005 - 05:59:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:40:51 EDT