- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:28:34 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org list" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Shane,
On 12 Sep 2009, at 14:09, Shane McCarron wrote:
> Jeni Tennison wrote:
>>
>> In the case of
>>
>> <p xmlns:ex="http://example.org/" about="http://example.com/"
>> rel="ex:rel3">
>> <span property="bogus:bogus" content="Content 3">
>> <span about="http://example.net/">Test 3</span>
>> </span>
>> </p>
>>
>> by the same argument, we should create:
>>
>> Default graph:
>> <http://example.com/> <http://example.org/rel3> _:a .
>>
>> Graph A:
>> _:a bogus:bogus "Content 3" .
>>
>> To do this, the property attribute must be treated as "present"
>> rather than as "not present" (ie as if the property attribute
>> wasn't there).
> Well... this presumes that you are creating an alternate graph. If
> you want to do this in your implementation, you are free to do so.
> A Conforming RDFa Processor is not required to do this.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. As I understood it, Mark's argument was (for a
similar situation involving illegal rels) that you would want to allow
a conforming processor to produce a triple from the illegal rel value
(but in a separate graph) which made sense when coupled with the
triple that all conforming processors *must* make in the default
graph. And therefore, that the default graph must contain the triple
with the bnode rather than a triple that skipped the bnode.
If you accept that argument when it comes to illegal rels (which you
seemed to), I think exactly the same argument applies for illegal
properties because of the effect they have on [skip content].
Hopefully Mark will be able to either make that argument more
persuasively to you, or to explain why it doesn't apply in this case
to me.
> As to the "basis" for my conclusion...
>
> Processing step 8 reads, in part:
>
> If however [current object resource] was set to null, but there are
> predicates present, then they must be stored as [incomplete
> triple]s, pending the discovery of a subject that can be used as the
> object. Also, [current object resource] should be set to a newly
> created [bnode];
>
> This means that while a bnode must be *named* at this time, the
> corresponding triple would not be included in the default graph
> unless the bnode is actually resolved by attaching it to something
> else during the recursive processing of the child elements.
Right, and in this example there are two possible ways in which the
hanging triple created during the processing of the <p> element can be
attached. If the HTML was:
<p xmlns:ex="http://example.org/" about="http://example.com/"
rel="ex:rel3">
<span content="Content 3">
<span about="http://example.net/">Test 3</span>
</span>
</p>
then the hanging triple would be completed when the inner <span> was
encountered, with the object being <http://example.net/>.
If the HTML was:
<p xmlns:ex="http://example.org/" about="http://example.com/"
rel="ex:rel3">
<span property="ex:prop" content="Content 3">
<span about="http://example.net/">Test 3</span>
</span>
</p>
then the hanging triple would be completed when the outer <span> was
encountered, with the object being a bnode.
As far as I can tell, in order for the hanging triple to not be
completed at all, when processing the outer <span> you would have to
both set [skip element] to true (so that they're not completed in step
10 of the processing of the outer <span>) and set [recurse] to false
(so that they're not completed when the inner <span> is processed).
It would certainly be possible to have an illegal property value set
[recurse] to false in step 9.
I'm sure that you understand the intention of the RDFa Task Force far
better than I do. I'm only trying to (a) understand that intention
myself so that rdfQuery is properly implemented and (b) help you
understand where the spec doesn't seem to reflect that intention,
especially since I know how hard it is to really *see* a spec when
you've been involved in creating it.
Cheers,
Jeni
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Saturday, 12 September 2009 19:29:09 UTC