- 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