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

Processor Graph Vocabulary ( relevant to ACTION-52 and ISSUE-67 )

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:21:15 +0100
To: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8D2B4E17-600D-4A2E-89AB-99F3BD772243@w3.org>
As an action from yesterday: I looked at my old vocabulary definition which still seemed to be fine. Nevertheless, I re-edited the wiki page as a proposal for how to change the core spec:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Processor_Graph_Vocabulary

I know we had a huge discussion thread on the processor graph vocabulary before, and this is certainly some sort of a bare minimum. I believe we can agree on that, it is certainly useful for implementations (I use it:-) and it also answers to the LC comment of Henri.

Before incorporating it into the document itself I wanted to see if anybody has a major objection.

One small issue: the vocabulary is now defined in its own namespace: http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa_processing_graph#. We already have an rdfa namespace, so it might be possible to merge the two. The reason I have not done is as follows: the rdfa namespace is used to define terms and prefixes. As I said, that mechanism may be used by others (eg, a JSON serialization), so it might be better to choose a namespace for that one that does not seem to be dependent on rdfa. If we take that route, then it should certainly be kept separate from the processing graph vocabulary.

Cheers

Ivan

----
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 12:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:50 UTC