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

Re: Comments on PR-rdfa-syntax-20080904

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:44:22 -0700
Message-ID: <48D45576.7060905@adida.net>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, da@talisplatform.com


Hi Danny,

Thanks for your comments on the RDFa Syntax PR [1]. We discussed your
comment during our last telecon, noting that after the online discussion
you focused your comment on the wording of "default graph" [2].

During the meeting, we discussed Mark's point regarding the default
graph [3]. Our conclusion is that, because we are following SPARQL's
lead in using the term "default graph", and because it would be
difficult to be precise about conformance if we change this language so
late in the game, we'd like to keep the current language.

We don't believe that our wording prevents GRDDL parsers from producing
additional triples, only that, in order to test conformance, an RDFa
parser has to be able to place the RDFa triples (and only the RDFa
triples) in the default graph. But there can many other named graphs,
and that's of course fine by us, and conformant according to our wording.

We're hoping this is acceptable to you, do let us know.

-Ben


[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0026.html

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0063.html

[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Sep/0065.html
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2008 01:45:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:59 UTC