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

Re: my action on conformance

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:25:31 +0200
Message-ID: <46F7BACB.5010608@w3.org>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 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.
> Steven


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 13:25:22 UTC

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