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.htmlReceived on Saturday, 20 September 2008 01:45:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 September 2008 01:45:08 GMT