- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 18:31:48 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 16:32:12 UTC
I am sorry Toby I do not understand. We have a decision that errors should be added to a processor graph. Does it mean that you are against that resolution altogether? Because if you are not, then I am not sure I understand your reaction... As for no other RDF serializations doing something similar: that is true. But, although we do say that RDFa is yet another serialization, the fact is that it does require a more complex processor than, say, an RDF/XML or a Turtle parser. In this sense I am not sure the comparison is fair... Ivan On Jul 7, 2010, at 18:06 , Toby Inkster wrote: > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:35:27 -0400 > Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > >> -1 to the EARL-based mechanism. >> +1 to the simpler, RDFa-specific vocabulary. > > -1 to both. > > No other RDF serialisation does anything like this. > > -- > Toby A Inkster > <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> > <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 16:32:12 UTC