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

Re: my action on conformance

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:51:05 +0200
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tyyjjfngsmjzpq@acer3010.lan>

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:13:38 +0200, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:

> 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.

No, you are not alone, I agree. I worry about us not spotting dirty  
triples too.

> 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.

Still, I don't think RDFa should necessarily be the sole source of triples  
for a document. Think microformats and RDFa in the same document.

But I think our test set should attempt to spot dirty triples.

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 14:51:19 UTC

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