Re: Small @profile question

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> ...actually re-reading your email I see a third possibility which is
> probably what you mean. If A is processed without processing P, then
> if every CURIE or term in A relied on a mapping in P then no graph
> would be generated.
> 
> If that's what you mean, then yes, that is possible.

Yup, that's what I meant - thanks for clarifying Mark :)

Rather than diving in to all the possible issues/cons I see with this, 
as it's probably very well trodden ground, all I will say is:

1: It was my (possibly naive) understanding that one of the main 
considerations when writing a spec or protocol, is to constrain the 
specification such that possible points of failure and unexpected 
behaviour are reduced to an absolute minimum (@profile appears to 
introduce multiple counts of both, which previously did not exist.)

2: I really do think @profile could simplify the task of adding semantic 
markup, I just feel like it's a nice feature for an RDFa IDE that 
inserts all your prefixes for you, rather than part of the spec (let 
along core).

3: When RDFa 1.1 hits the main stream I'd fully expect to see @profile 
being the cause of every second RDFa related question/problem on sites 
like stack overflow. I can already see the defacto responses and I'm 
sure you can too: "you missed out a profile", "xyz prefix isn't in your 
profile", "your profile's on a server that's went down", "rdfa:uri 
should be a string not a <uri>", "somebody has edited the profile 
document without you knowing" and so forth.

Apologies, but for my own peace of mind I had to at least say something.

> There have been discussions at times about adding triples to the
> triple-store even if they have unmatched prefixes, allowing them to be
> 'fixed' at a later time; but we've never got very far with that.

I can see why that may be needed when @profile is in RDFa, yet.. ouch.

Best,

Nathan

> 
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just wanted to check my understanding was correct quickly.
>>
>> @profile allows me to author an RDFa document where the prefixes are stored
>> in an external document pointed to by @profile.
>>
>> As in, author an RDFa document which when considered by itself, contains no
>> RDF graph.
>>
>> is that correct?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nathan
>>
>>
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 9 September 2010 20:40:53 UTC