W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2011

Re: ACTION-509

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:17:49 +0000
Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Message-Id: <322DA146-E9B3-4583-9A8E-81FCF7951B0D@jenitennison.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Right,

The existing wording in RDFa Core is:

   In some of the examples below we have used IRIs with fragment
   identifiers that are local to the document containing the RDFa
   fragment identifiers shown (e.g., 'about="#me"'). This idiom, which
   is also used in RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and other RDF
   serializations, gives a simple way to 'mint' new IRIs for entities
   described by RDFa and therefore contributes considerably to the
   expressive power of RDFa. Unfortunately, this practice is not at
   present covered by the media type registrations that govern the
   meaning of fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI
   specification [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]). For more
   information about fragment identifier semantics, see [WEBARCH]
   section 3.2.1.

I suggest the following, which incorporates the wording that Henry suggested with the desire to say something about what languages that incorporate RDFa Core need to do:

   In some of the examples below we have used IRIs with fragment
   identifiers that are local to the document containing the RDFa
   fragment identifiers shown (e.g., 'about="#me"'). This idiom, which
   is also used in RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and other RDF
   serializations, gives a simple way to 'mint' new IRIs for entities
   described by RDFa and therefore contributes considerably to the
   expressive power of RDFa. The precise meaning of IRIs which include 
   fragment identifiers when they appear in RDF graphs is given in 
   Section 7 of [RDF-CONCEPTS]. To ensure that such fragment identifiers
   can be interpreted correctly, media type registrations for markup 
   languages that incorporate RDFa should directly or indirectly
   reference this specification.

Any objections?

Jeni

On 2 Dec 2011, at 17:15, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

> > I'm pretty sure we _did_ reach consensus.  But maybe I left the call
> > with that impression, and it fell apart thereafter. . .
> 
> Maybe we can handle this in mostly e-mail. If you care to propose the text of a resolution that you believe would command consensus, and circulate that in e-mail, we could either decide it's sufficiently non-controversial after all to just go ahead without telcon discussion, or at very least we'd be better set for a focused telcon session. If you feel it's still worth the effort, that is.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Noah
> 
> On 12/2/2011 4:11 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> Noah Mendelsohn writes:
>> 
>>> On 12/1/2011 3:20 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
>>>> *draft*  resolution that somehow never got made into a proper resolution
>>>> (though there is no indication in the minutes why):
>>> 
>>> My recollection on this is vague, but it seems we went through several
>>> proposed wordings, and it may well be that we decided that we didn't
>>> have consensus. It is unfortunate that the record doesn't more clearly
>>> indicate why the effort to craft a resolution was dropped.
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure we _did_ reach consensus.  But maybe I left the call
>> with that impression, and it fell apart thereafter. . .
>> 
>> ht
> 
> 

-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 18:18:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:41 GMT