W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Comments on PR-rdfa-syntax-20080904

From: Danny Ayers <da@talisplatform.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:43:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4d15cc0c0809141743o6abd9fa3r1371d75d17b80f2c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, "Ian Davis" <ian.davis@talis.com>, tai@g5n.co.uk

Mark,

Although you said your response wasn't formal, Toby's response that
he's been able to work with the spec as it stands shifts my position
significantly. (I'll argue "there exists a well-informed developer"
vs. "for all PHP scripters" over a beer sometime :-)

Hence I formally withdraw all my criticisms, bar two^H^H^H one:

>>> * 4.3. RDFa Processor Conformance *
>>>
>>> "A conforming RDFa Processor MAY make available additional triples that have
>>> been generated using rules not described here, but these triples MUST NOT be
>>> made available in the [default graph]. (Whether these additional triples are
>>> made available in one or more additional [RDF graph]s is
>>> implementation-specific, and therefore not defined here.)"

I strongly recommend rewording this to something like:

>>> "A conforming RDFa Processor MAY make available additional triples that have
>>> been generated using rules not described here, but these triples MUST NOT be
>>> made available in the [RDFa-derived graph]. (Whether these additional triples are
>>> made available in the same or additional [RDF graph]s is not defined here.)"

Maybe not the perfect wording, but for a set of html2rdf document
processors to only get the RDFa interpretation is *broken*.

Say I have a document that only has GRDDL-accessible triples, and an
RDFa processor gets there first, the result would be one empty
"default graph", plus some auxiliary implementation-specific triples,
without any unambiguous connection to the document from which they
were derived. My interpretation of the RDF-in-HTML efforts is to
maximise the explicit data available from the document, not leave it
to the consumer's fortune.

My other substantive objection is (quoting you rather than the spec):

"I don't think it is true that an author needs to understand RDFa."

I have a fundamental disagreement on that statement, but in the
informative context it appears in the spec I don't think it makes much
difference - so kindly ignore :-)

btw, my use of language like "gives me the impression of seeming
messy" is that of someone who's effectively overlooking the spec as a
whole afresh, rather than having being concentrating on the minutiae
for a long while. And too wimpy to say "that sucks" ;-)

Cheers,
Danny.
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 00:44:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:58 UTC