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

Re: UPDATED Telecon Agenda - 6th May 2010, 1400 UTC

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 13:48:44 +0100
Message-ID: <w2j640dd5061005060548la25ab28wc06ca084fbe3b608@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ivan,

> What I meant is: the concept of a store, the parsing, the query are all general concepts
> that are not specific to RDFa. Ie, I could imagine something like
> store.parse("turtle","http://example.org/t.ttl")
> ie, that a Javascript application accesses an RDF file somewhere and integrates it with
> whatever is in the store already. After all, that is the beauty of RDF... but in this case a
> DOM node becomes irrelevant...

Yes...definitely. That's the reason for the parameter on both Parser
and Query (although as I say in the document, it should probably be a

By the way, I just took a quick diversion into looking at how some of
these things would look in Python, and I'd forgotten that it has the
notion of a dictionary object. So I think it will make things a lot
easier to implement in other languages if we define the parameters and
return values as dictionary objects rather than using the general
notion of an object, which I've been doing up until now.

(Many W3C APIs have the notion basic types such as DOMString, and then
in their appendices they indicate that this is implemented in a
variety of ways, depending on whether you are using Java, JavaScript,
etc. We could do the same, and say that a basic type is a dictionary,
but that different languages will provide their own implementation of



Mark Birbeck, webBackplane



webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 12:49:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:47 UTC