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

Re: Re 2: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-37: Clarifying bnode explanation

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:05:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4CBE1643.6050000@aptest.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
  I have no preference.  However, can we please get a ruling on this (my 
chairman?) so I can update the spec?

On 10/19/2010 3:45 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
>> How about:
>>
>> """
>> After processing, the following triples will be generated:
>>
>>   _:john foaf:mbox <mailto:john@example.org> .
>>   _:sue foaf:mbox <mailto:sue@example.org> .
>>   _:john foaf:knows _:sue .
>>
>> The blank node identifiers ("_:john" and "_:sue") are arbitrary and
>> implementations are not required to maintain the same identifiers as
>> occur in the RDFa markup. The above data could have equivalently been
>> represented as:
>>
>>   _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:john@example.org> .
>>   _:b foaf:mbox <mailto:sue@example.org> .
>>   _:a foaf:knows _:b .
>>
>> For clarity, this document retains blank node identifiers in examples,
>> but developers must not rely on RDFa implementations returning
>> identifiers that are consistent with the RDFa markup.
>> """
>>
>
> +1 from me - perfectly clear imho

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 22:06:46 UTC

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