ISSUE-41: Processor Graph Vocabulary is under-defined

processor graph vocabulary

Processor Graph Vocabulary is under-defined

State:

CLOSED

Product:

RDFa 1.1 Core

Raised by:

Manu Sporny

Opened on:

2010-08-05

Description:

From Gregg Kellogg:

Providing language that requires that errors and warnings be generated, without providing guidance as to exactly what should be generated makes it difficult for me to know the level of detail to include as a parser implementor, and makes it pretty useless for a consumer to know what to expect. I would request that the WG revisit this issue and come up with a vocabulary, required production and examples that provide more guidance to implementors.

Looking at previous discussions, both EARL and an RDFa-defined vocabulary were considered. Looking at EARL, it's not clear to me exactly what would be used to generate warnings. The best example I saw used an RDF-defined vocabulary to define a simple production as follows:

>>>>> _:1 a rdfa:ProfileReferenceError ;
>>>>> _:1 dc:description "The @profile value could not be deferenced" ;
>>>>> _:1 dc:date "2010-06-30T13:40"^^xsd:dateTime ;

I'd also expect to see some form of source, representing an XPATH or CSS selector to the location of the error, along with more defined error classes, at least those that are required for production, but other warning and informational classes as well. You may also want to include an ordering, either a sequence number or some other mechanism. A dateTime certainly isn't precise enough to gather all information. Alternatively, and rdf:List (even though it can't be expressed well in RDFa itself, but that's another matter).

The following terms could be considered:

rdfa:HostLanguageMarkupError
rdfa:ProfileReferenceError
rdfa:UndefinedPrefixError
rdfa:UndefinedTermError
rdfa:MisclaneousWarning
rdfa:MisclaneousInformation
rdfa:sourceByteOffset
rdfa:sourceXpath
rdfa:sourceCss

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: Ongoing objection to RDFa Profiles format (as XHTML+RDFa) (from nathan@webr3.org on 2010-10-08)
2. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from nathan@webr3.org on 2010-10-08)
3. Re: Ongoing objection to RDFa Profiles format (as XHTML+RDFa) (from nathan@webr3.org on 2010-10-08)
4. Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-41: processor graph vocabulary (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-10-04)
5. PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-41: processor graph vocabulary (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-10-03)
6. RDFa WG telecon minutes for 2010-09-23 (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-09-23)
7. Re: Telecon Agenda - September 23th 2010, 1400 UTC (from mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com on 2010-09-23)
8. Re: Telecon Agenda - September 23th 2010, 1400 UTC (from knud.moeller@deri.org on 2010-09-21)
9. Telecon Agenda - September 23th 2010, 1400 UTC (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-09-20)
10. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from shane@aptest.com on 2010-09-15)
11. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no on 2010-09-15)
12. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from shane@aptest.com on 2010-09-15)
13. Re: HTML WG: ISSUE-120 Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology (from xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no on 2010-09-15)
14. Re: Telecon Agenda - September 16th 2010, 1400 UTC (from benjamin.adrian@dfki.de on 2010-09-15)
15. Telecon Agenda - September 16th 2010, 1400 UTC (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-09-14)
16. ISSUE-41 (processor graph vocabulary): Processor Graph Vocabulary is under-defined [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2010-08-05)

Related notes:

Display change log