W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Followup on the processor graph discussion of yesterday ( on ACTION-53 , related to ISSUE-67 )

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:42:12 +0100
Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Message-Id: <84DE82A7-0AC1-4249-BB3E-465381EFFB47@w3.org>
Toby, others,

we had a discussion yesterday about the exact positioning of the processor graph and I got an action on text making the usage of that graph 'optional'. As far as I remember, the issue at hand was that Toby did not want an obligation to produce a processor graph in case an implementation is a library that would rather raise exceptions (or something like that).

However, I forgot that the current text already 'categorizes' RDFa processors to touch on this issue in 7.6.1[1]. In particular, it says:

SAX-based processors or processors that utilize function or method callbacks to report the generation of triples are classified as event-based RDFa Processors. For Event-based RDFa Processors, the software must allow the developer to register a function or callback that is called when a triple is generated for the processor graph. The callback may be the same as the one that is used for the default graph as long as it can be determined if a generated triple belongs in the processor graph or the default graph.

Toby, does not this address your concern? In this respect, the processor graph is a fairly conceptual entity that can be used in a way you describe. If so, I am not sure we need to change the document...


[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#accessing-the-processor-graph
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 Wednesday, 2 February 2011 10:41:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:23 UTC