W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2007

Re: my action on conformance

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:15:27 +0100
Message-ID: <a707f8300709200215k276173eal443444571654fb72@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi Ben,

I have to admit though, that I hadn't really thought about it from the
direction you are coming from.

What I was trying to achieve was that if some parser decides to
generate 'local' triples that are for its own use, or a developer
wants to add 'experimental' triples whilst trying out new features, we
shouldn't necessarily say that this parser is non-conformant--provided
that it generates at least the minimum triples.

However, the issue you raise is slightly different, and I think we
should try to take it into account.

An example came up the other day, when I was showing a friend how the
RDFa parser worked, and I showed the mark-up to illustrate how easy it
was to refer to a book with @instanceof and @resource. His immediate
question was to ask how this mark-up related to the use of @cite, and
of course _my_ response was to say that it would be easy to add the
use of @cite to the RDFa parser.

But the I realised that were I to do that, it could become a problem
in the future if the taskforce issued an XHTML+RDFa 1.1 that included
@cite, and it was done in a way that was different to the additional
feature I had added to my parser.

So I think we should allow the 'extra triples'--I think we definitely
need that--but perhaps we should also indicate somewhere that
generating extra triples from XHTML itself might cause you problems in
the future, since XHTML+RDFa may define further rules.

Any thoughts on that?



On 20/09/2007, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
> 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

  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 09:15:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:52 UTC