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

Fwd: my action on conformance

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:36:32 +0200
Message-ID: <cf8107640709200236n5dea68f6i9ba7c665236d65da@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

.. Missed "reply to all"; sorry Mark; sorry all. I wrote:


Ben, Mark,

I think you're both correct here. :)

A thought -- how about using @profile for this? Meaning that: if the
value of @profile in an XHTML document is "http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa/"
*and nothing more*, an RDFa parser should not output anything more
than what is defined in the XHTML1.1+RDFa spec?

If it is not present, or contains multiple profile references, the
situation is less clear (even indeterminate?) and thus this
requirement isn't imposed.

Best regards,
Niklas


On 9/20/07, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsplayer.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> 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 09:36:43 UTC

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