Re: my action on conformance

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:13:38 +0200, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> 
>> My worry was that parser libraries that generate random "dirty triples"
>> would still be compliant and potentially create a problem for people who
>> use them.
>>
>> Apparently, I'm the only person worried about this (blame it on my
>> security paranoia), so I'll happily withdraw my objection here and say
>> that I'm happy with the current SPARQL-based test cases and the
>> corresponding "presence of triples" compliance approach.
> 
> No, you are not alone, I agree. I worry about us not spotting dirty
> triples too.
> 

+1

>> Note that this does *not* mean that RDFa will generate triples for the
>> old Dublin Core notation, just that if a tool like Mark's Sidewinder
>> chooses to generate triples for the legacy Dublin Core approach, we
>> won't say that it no longer complies with RDFa.
> 
> Still, I don't think RDFa should necessarily be the sole source of
> triples for a document. Think microformats and RDFa in the same document.
> 
> But I think our test set should attempt to spot dirty triples.
> 
> Steven
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf