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

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

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:00:10 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimi80CcLDJdjQ8A7vWtTr1dNhdy6A4jxn613Bnq@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ivan,

But at the telecon we agreed not to change the examples.

Obviously I'll wait to see what this wording is, but based on previous
discussions my argument was that the bnode identifiers in the prose
and the serialisation needed to be consistent.

Regards,

Mark


On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 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 10:01:31 UTC

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