- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:01:01 -0500
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 21:36 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 03/03/2010 02:55 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: [...] > >> I don't see anything close in your issues list. > >> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues > >> > >> If you added this to your issues list, I could maybe cross it off > >> my TAG todo list. > > The RDFa API is meant to extract triples from the current document only. > We are leaving the decision on how to store those triples for later use > as a part of the RDF TripleStore APIs Note. > > Would the creation of an RDFa TripleStore API Note be acceptable, probably. For now, all I really want is an entry in your issues list so that I can find out what you eventually decide. Even if you eventually decide to do nothing much, I'll know that you looked at it a little. If you don't think it's a good use of the WG's time to make a group decision at all, then I can understand that too... then the ball is back in my court and I'll have to think about whether to do something about it or leave it in the someday pile. > or > would you want a full RDF storage spec defined in WebIDL? While we have > people that are interested in RDF storage in the RDFa WG, it's not our > primary focus. > > -- manu -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 15 March 2010 17:01:07 UTC