W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-37: Clarifying bnode explanation

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:53:05 -0200
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5EBDAB76-CEB2-4318-AD3B-E7F31D5BD87C@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
The proposed resolution (which I agree with...) is not complete. I have also proposed to change the wording of at least one of the examples making use of bnodes. I believe Shane has the right formulation for it.

Ivan

On Oct 18, 2010, at 23:34 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> If there are no objections to this proposal by this Thursday, October
> 21st at 13:00 UTC, we will close ISSUE-37: Clarifying bnode explanation.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/37
> 
> After a bit of back and forth between Ivan and Mark, it became clear
> that Ivan would be happy with something to this effect being added to
> the RDFa Core document:
> 
> [[[
> Beyond keeping track of the differences, the processor may choose any
> internal representation of, for example, _:a and _:b. These
> representations are not required to be identical on two different runs
> of the processor on the same RDFa source. Processors are also not
> required to keep the original names when granting access to the RDF
> graph. The only requirement is that <em>different</em> blank nodes in
> the original source should be mapped onto <em>different</em> blank
> nodes, and <em>identical</em> blank nodes should be mapped on
> <em>identical</em> blank nodes when answering an API request or when
> serializing the graph.
> ]]]
> 
> Discussion with Mark revealed that he would be fine with this addition
> as well. The core of Ivan's concern was that we don't highlight the
> possible issues with using bnodes in the specification text. The
> paragraph above attempts to highlight the issues.
> 
> This proposal asserts that the paragraph above, or one roughly
> equivalent to it, be inserted into the RDFa Core specification around
> section 8.1.1.4. This change addresses the issue and the issue should be
> closed.
> 
> Please comment before Thursday, October 21st at 13:00 UTC if you object
> to this proposal. If there are no objections by that time, this issue
> will be closed. If there are objections, the RDFa Working Group will
> perform a straw-poll and decide whether or not to close the issue before
> entering Last Call.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Saving Journalism - The PaySwarm Developer API
> http://digitalbazaar.com/2010/09/12/payswarm-api/
> 


----
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 Tuesday, 19 October 2010 08:52:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:21 UTC