Re: Pending vocabulary issues + further proceeding

From: Emmanuel Pietriga <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:03:31 +0200

Chris Bizer wrote:
>>>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 current status is, that you can include prefixes into the FSL expression
> or have a central declaration attached to a group.
> .htm#grouping

Right, I forgot about this one. It is not much better than the global
declarations. Its only advantage is that you can limit the scope of your
prefix binding declarations, as you can do with xmlns declarations in
XML trees. But this hasn't proven to be that useful in my opinion
(mainly because you don't want to assign different prefixes to the same
namespace in different parts of your document).

> The solution proposed in the FSL docuemnt that a processor can use
> declarations from the RDF/XML document is not valid, because there isn't
> anythink like an RDF/XML document in RDF abstract syntax.

I'll fix that.

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 - 06:02:04 EDT

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