Re: QNames in content, was: rdf in atom

[Bill de hOra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > On 02/07/2008, at 6:58 AM, Bill de hOra wrote:
> >
> > > 1: QNames in content:
> > >
> > > "The at:map element indicates how an element in a given context 
> > > (either feed or entry, depending on use) maps to RDF statements.  Its 
> > > content MUST be an XML QName, and indicates the element that is being 
> > > mapped."
> > >
> > > that's more or less a bug from my pov.
> >
> > I'm not a big fan either. I think this is the part of the spec that 
> > needs most discussion; e.g., I can imagine that XPath may be more 
> > useful ultimately, given things like atom:author. The counter-argument 
> > to that is that keeping it simple encourages simple Atom extensions, 
> > which are IMO good.
> > ...
>
> The QName-in-content problem could be easily avoided by saying
>
>    <at:map property="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title";>
>      <atom:title/>
>    </at:map>
>
> instead of
>
>    <at:map
>     property="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title";>atom:title</at:map>
>
> Or am I missing something here?

Interesting. That's no more or less ambiguous then my suggestion to 
annotate the source atom:title element with an attribute the defines the 
target RDF. However the attribute approach gives you brevity and is 
'closer' to idiomatic XML on when to choose attributes/elements.

Bill