- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:54:20 +0000
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "public-grddl-wg@w3.org" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, "patrick.stickler@nokia.com" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "chris@bizer.de" <chris@bizer.de>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
> From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@ibiblio.org] > > I think it's up to the POWDER Group to decide whether or not to use > RDF/XML+GRDDL->RDF plus reification or vanilla XML+GRDDL->RDF plus > reification. Of course. I'm just contributing my views. :) > [ . . . ] > I would prefer not to revisit the test-cases (as we closed this issue > quite a while back, and I can see how the feature that Jeremy is > suggesting using could be useful, as analogous problems re entailment > crop up in OWL inference). [ . . . ] There are two separable issues here: 1. Whether test #grddlonrdf conforms to the GRDDL spec as written. AFAICT it does *not* conform to the GRDDL spec as written, so in my view the working group has a responsibility in an erratum to either fix it or delete it. 2. Whether the GRDDL spec should be changed, to make the result of an RDF document be *only* the RDF that is directly specified in that document. This would represent a (slight) design change, and thus it is not a candidate for an erratum. In my view, it would have to wait until GRDDL 2.0. :( David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 19:55:21 UTC