W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Named Graphs in RDFa

From: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:21:31 +0000
Message-Id: <AEE6D65D-6F5E-4CA8-B203-748B9F59A180@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>

On 1 Feb 2009, at 07:43, Michael Hausenblas wrote:

> You rightly conclude that we very likely need a new attribute but  
> then state
> that 'this document does not define what that attribute is called'.  
> Hm. I
> think this is too much relying on a convergent market. I can't see  
> how this
> should scale.

Kjetil had a similar concern. He is on this mailing list now though,  
so I won't attempt to speak for him.

It is not that I don't think a proper attribute should be defined and  
standardised (see appendix C of the draft) - it is more that there  
are still a lot of decisions to make about it - what namespace should  
it be in? what should it be called? ("graph" like TriX/TriG/SPARQL?  
"context" like N-Quads? "formula" like Notation 3?) what should its  
lexical space be? In fact, even its value space is up for question -  
it could be a list of URIs for example.

I thought that it was important to have general discussion on the  
idea first before making the syntax completely concrete.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2009 09:22:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 1 February 2009 09:22:16 GMT