W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > October 2008

Re: Comments on PR-rdfa-syntax-20080904

From: Danny Ayers <da@talisplatform.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:41:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4d15cc0c0810030641g2b56e5b8m945b71533853ec02@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Hi Ben,

Your response/group decision is acceptable to me, thanks.

Cheers,
Danny.

2008/9/20 Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>:
>
> Hi Danny,
>
> Thanks for your comments on the RDFa Syntax PR [1]. We discussed your
> comment during our last telecon, noting that after the online discussion
> you focused your comment on the wording of "default graph" [2].
>
> During the meeting, we discussed Mark's point regarding the default
> graph [3]. Our conclusion is that, because we are following SPARQL's
> lead in using the term "default graph", and because it would be
> difficult to be precise about conformance if we change this language so
> late in the game, we'd like to keep the current language.
>
> We don't believe that our wording prevents GRDDL parsers from producing
> additional triples, only that, in order to test conformance, an RDFa
> parser has to be able to place the RDFa triples (and only the RDFa
> triples) in the default graph. But there can many other named graphs,
> and that's of course fine by us, and conformant according to our wording.
>
> We're hoping this is acceptable to you, do let us know.
>
> -Ben
>
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0026.html
>
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0063.html
>
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0065.html
>
Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 13:41:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 October 2008 13:41:42 GMT