- From: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:21:31 +0000
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On 1 Feb 2009, at 07:43, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> You rightly conclude that we very likely need a new attribute but
> then state
> that 'this document does not define what that attribute is called'.
> Hm. I
> think this is too much relying on a convergent market. I can't see
> how this
> should scale.
Kjetil had a similar concern. He is on this mailing list now though,
so I won't attempt to speak for him.
It is not that I don't think a proper attribute should be defined and
standardised (see appendix C of the draft) - it is more that there
are still a lot of decisions to make about it - what namespace should
it be in? what should it be called? ("graph" like TriX/TriG/SPARQL?
"context" like N-Quads? "formula" like Notation 3?) what should its
lexical space be? In fact, even its value space is up for question -
it could be a list of URIs for example.
I thought that it was important to have general discussion on the
idea first before making the syntax completely concrete.
--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2009 09:22:16 UTC