W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2010

Re: ISSUE-26: RDFa-specific vs. Earl-like Processor Status vocabulary

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 18:31:48 +0200
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9788A356-BE64-491E-9009-97569C879D52@w3.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
I am sorry Toby I do not understand. We have a decision that errors should be added to a processor graph. Does it mean that you are against that resolution altogether? Because if you are not, then I am not sure I understand your reaction...

As for no other RDF serializations doing something similar: that is true. But, although we do say that RDFa is yet another serialization, the fact is that it does require a more complex processor than, say, an RDF/XML or a Turtle parser. In this sense I am not sure the comparison is fair...

Ivan



On Jul 7, 2010, at 18:06 , Toby Inkster wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:35:27 -0400
> Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
>> -1 to the EARL-based mechanism.
>> +1 to the simpler, RDFa-specific vocabulary.
> 
> -1 to both.
> 
> No other RDF serialisation does anything like this.
> 
> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 16:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT