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

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

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:46:32 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinet8OhRzBy3xu3pqcDhaz36OpMrS1O5T9sR1B3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Manu,

-1.

See separate email for detailed explanation.

Regards,

Mark

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 06:05 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I have no preference.  However, can we please get a ruling on this (my
>> chairman?) so I can update the spec?
>
> +1 from me for the text below as well - so that's +3 so far (Toby,
> Nathan, myself). Ivan said that he trusts Shane to make the proper edit
> to the spec regarding this issue. Mark, please +1/-1 on the change
> below, just for the record.
>
> Shane, in an attempt to not make your life a living hell over the next
> couple of days, feel free to add the text below to an unpublished
> version of the spec (the Overview-src.html file would be fine) with the
> assumption that we've found rough consensus on this issue.
>
> Folks still have until 13:00 UTC on this coming Thursday to object to
> the change below, at which point the RDFa WG will have to straw-poll to
> see whether or not this text will stay in the document.
>
> If anyone objects to this change, please offer the complete spec text
> that would work for you, keeping in mind the spirit of what the text
> below is attempting to accomplish.
>
>> 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
>
> -- 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/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 08:47:45 UTC

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