- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:51:07 +0200
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Good Question. I think that there are some parts of the spec which are very RDFa-sepcific which could be defined now, if there was a rough draft of the basic RDF service. But the definition of the RDF API should happen in parallel. Tim On 2010-10 -05, at 17:50, Nathan wrote: > Hi Tim, one clarification asked below: > > Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >> On 2010-10 -05, at 11:27, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> With my RDFLib background: of course. But I really wonder whether we are not going beyond the RDFa API level here. That was what I said in my previous mail... >> The (complicated RDF meets DOM) RDFa API should be designed as an extension to the (simple clean RDF model only) RDF API. >> If the RDFa is designed first, then the design will be terrible as you can't design the extension before that extended. >> Because any RDFa script will want to have the basic RDF API. > > Can you clarify if you mean that the generic RDF part of the RDFa API should be designed first, then RDFa DOM specific functionality added as an extension. (all within the RDFa WG and carrying on as planned) > > -OR- > > The RDFa API and WG should wait for another group to standardize an RDF API, then extend that? > > Thanks, > > Nathan >
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 13:51:11 UTC