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

Re: RDFa WG telecon minutes for 2010-10-21

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:04:59 +0200
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5A80A8EE-4C95-4909-9FE9-CDC647E905A3@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Having seen the minutes:

I do not understand this resolution

"Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. If implementers use RDF to express prefix and term mappings, they MUST use the vocabulary defined in the RDFa Core specification."

What does this mean for an implementation? If we do not include any non-RDF based specification for an RDFa profile, then the only choice of an implementation is to completely ignore this sentence. Of course, an implementation may add non-RDFa based profile interpretation if it also defines its own format, but then the whole cycle of profile specification and interpretation becomes absolutely implementation dependent. As a consequence, I do not see what the value is to have that as part of the specification text.

I think I would like to understand this before we go to last call...

Ivan

On Oct 21, 2010, at 19:05 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> Thanks to Shane for scribing (for 100 minutes straight)! The RDFa WG
> telecon minutes for October 21st, 2010 are now available here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-10-21
> 
> If you would like to read minutes from this or previous meetings, the
> public record of all RDFa WG telecons is available here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Meetings
> 
> Agenda
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0187.html
> Present
>  Shane McCarron, Toby Inkster, Steven Pemberton, Manu Sporny,
>  Mark Birbeck, Knud Möller, Nathan Rixham
> Regrets
>  Ivan Herman, Ben Adida, Benjamin Adrian
> Scribe
>  Shane McCarron
> Resolutions
>  1. RDFa Working group prefers the current text in the RDFa Core
>     document as a way of expressing RDFa Profile documents.
>  2. Provide language in the RDFa Core spec to allow non-RDFa, and
>     non-RDF serializations for RDFa Profile documents. If implementers
>     use RDF to express prefix and term mappings, they MUST use the
>     vocabulary defined in the RDFa Core specification.
>  3. Close ISSUE-37 - accept Ivan's edited changes[1] to Mark's
>     proposal.
>  4. RDFa Core 1.1 should proceed to Last Call with a publication date
>     of October 26th 2010.
> Topics
>  1. Alternate proposals for RDFa Profile format
>  2. Discussing any open objections
>  3. Can we take RDFa Core 1.1 to last call?
> 
> -- manu
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Oct/0231.html
> 
> -- 
> 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 Saturday, 23 October 2010 14:04:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:22 UTC