my action on conformance

Hi all,

I have an action to look into conformance and "extra triples"

[NEW] ACTION: Ben research whether "Can an RDF-conformant parser
generate additional triples than those specified in the Syntax
specification?" is an already closed issue [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/14-rdfa-minutes.html#action12]


My worry was that parser libraries that generate random "dirty triples"
would still be compliant and potentially create a problem for people who
use them.

Apparently, I'm the only person worried about this (blame it on my
security paranoia), so I'll happily withdraw my objection here and say
that I'm happy with the current SPARQL-based test cases and the
corresponding "presence of triples" compliance approach.

Note that this does *not* mean that RDFa will generate triples for the
old Dublin Core notation, just that if a tool like Mark's Sidewinder
chooses to generate triples for the legacy Dublin Core approach, we
won't say that it no longer complies with RDFa.


-Ben

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2007 23:13:45 UTC