Re: RDFa API comments from TimBL

Mark, Nathan, Tim

I think there are several layers in the interface(s) that we may have to separate

1. A 'core' RDF interface, with the store, the triples, the bnodes, etc.
2. Some additional features of the core RDF interface that are relevant for generic RDF management from Javascript but are not necessarily relevant for RDFa (eg, removing a triple from the store came up as a possible example here)
3. Specific methods for RDFa (eg, which refer back to the elements where the triple came from, things like that
4. Extra methods that the tabulator uses that are not necessarily relevant for the core RDF management or for RDFa. Tim referred to smushing (ie, owl:sameAs handling as one of those).


It would be good to have a clear idea on which method/interface belongs to which of these categories. I think we can achieve a situation where #1 is aligned to the Tabulator API, and where #2, #3, and #4 are definable as 'extensions' (in some way or other) to #1. Formally, and per its current charter, I do not think that the RDFa WG should specify as part of its recommendation #2 and #4, only #1 and #3; publishing a WG note on #2 and #4 would be good, however.

So the question is: how far are we from that? Nathan, you have a view of both...

Ivan




On Oct 5, 2010, at 17:19 , Mark Birbeck wrote:

> Hi Nathan,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> 
>>> Nathan,
>>> 
>>> can you tell me what exactly the IndexedFormula and the IndexedDataStore
>>> does?
>>> 
>>> My purely admin issue is whether those features are related to the core
>>> RDF part of the RDFa one. Put it another way, whether those are to be part
>>> of an RDFa API. My worry is that the group is picking up too much onto its
>>> plate. Maybe we have to stop by showing the way those features can be
>>> bound/implemented with (on top) of what we publish might be enough in a
>>> first round, leaving room for further work by a more dedicated group...
>> 
>> Personally, I feel less like this is going the extra mile, and more like
>> without this the spec is falling a mile short; that said I understand where
>> you are coming from, especially when mentioning a more dedicated group -
>> this is probably an area where yourself and the editors, Sando, Tim etc
>> would be better to give feedback!
> 
> I had read your original email as discussing a change of syntax so
> that the RDFa API aligns better with the Tabulator API. But it sounds
> like you were actually saying that there are some features that are
> missing from the RDFa API that are present in Tabulator?
> 
> In that case it would be a good idea to say where you think the
> current spec falls short, especially if it's 'by a mile'. :)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> --
> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
> 
> mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com
> 
> http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
> 
> webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
> 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
> London, EC2A 4RR)


----
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