- From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:16:10 +0200
- To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: "RDFa" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Ben, > Mark proposed that we use the same approach: build into our > specification a grammar for what we expect these values to > look like, without having to reference an outside specification. > > After a few days of thinking about this, I agree with this > solution. We are basically doing exactly what SPARQL did. > Neither they nor we are trying to define a reusable concept. > It's too bad that we can't get together and actually *define* > this concept, but we need to worry about RDFa right now, and > that's the way to solve it. > > Any thoughts, complaints, objections, please send. That's exactly what I was asking and advocating in the first place. I absolutely agree with defining right what we need for RDFa and I never really got it how the whole discussion drifted away into TAGish shallows. Again: Let's do it the SPARQL-way, maybe some other specs will follow doing the same, and in some 5 years time, maybe, a CURIE-like, global spec will emerge ;) Cheers, Michael ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hausenblas, MSc. Institute of Information Systems & Information Management JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA ----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 19:16:15 UTC