Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-41: processor graph vocabulary

I agree with the proposal, but I also had an added action to provide a writeup for a possible processor graph vocabulary that the WG might want to publicize (even if not a Standard). Here it is:

I am not sure whether, if accepted, we should transfer this text into a W3C Note, or simply leave it on the wiki.


On Oct 3, 2010, at 18:43 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> If there are no objections to this proposal in 7 days, we will close
> ISSUE-41: processor graph vocabulary.
> The RDFa WG has discussed the issue and decided that it would take more
> time than we have available (in the RDFa WG telecons) to generate a
> solid processor graph vocabulary before the October 2010 deadline for
> our Last Call Working Draft for RDFa Core. We simultaneously recognize
> that one would need an RDFa Processor Graph vocabulary for
> interoperability purposes.
> The RDFa WG proposes that the group of individuals that are interested
> in working on such a vocabulary do so and release the work as a W3C Note
> by July 2011. An optional part of the test suite may also be created to
> ensure interoperability of errors and warnings generated by the RDFa
> processor and placed into the processor graph.
> Specifically, ISSUE-41 questions whether this definition should be a
> part of RDFa Core. The WG has found that it should not be a part of RDFa
> Core, but is important and thus should live external to the core
> specification.
> Please comment in 7 days from this post if you object to this proposal.
> If there are no objections within 7 days, ISSUE-41 will be closed.
> -- manu
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: WebID - Universal Login for the Web

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key:

Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 11:05:39 UTC