W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2011

Re: RDF API thoughts

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:55:22 +0000
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110111215522.692e83f6@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:10:00 +0000
Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> they may very well be included in the next revision of RDF,
> as per the potential RDF WG draft charter

I don't think it's going to be fruitful to try to cater for
RDF 1.1 or 2.0 or whatever it ends up being called.

Even if we recharter the RDFa WG with an extension, the new
RDF version recs will not be delivered until a good 18 months
after this group's charter ends - and that's if they're
delivered on time, which seems pretty unlikely to me.

Let's deliver an RDF API for RDF as it's defined today and not
try to guess what the RDF WG will do in the future. If it turns
out that the RDF API we develop is inadequate to cover the next
version of RDF, then the RDF WG worry about that.

> Profiles are required by RDFa processors (default profile etc), may
> well be adopted by the RDF WG for turtle and RDF, hence the
> specification - generally the interfaces will need to be supported by
> one of the two APIs regardless, can't just be dropped afaict.

I'm sorry, but this is a non-sequitur.

My RDFa parser is implemented on top of an existing RDF API
(not *the* RDF API, *an* RDF API - RDF::Trine's API); Ivan's
is implemented on top of an existing RDF API (rdflib's API).
Neither of these APIs have built-in profile support, but we
both managed to implement RDFa 1.1.

So implementing an RDFa parser does not require profile support
in the underlying RDF API.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 21:55:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:08 GMT