From RDFa Working Group Wiki
Subject: [Comment response] To Jeni Tennison
Thank you for your comment
on the RDFa 1.1 drafts.
The issue that you raise has been a topic of discussion in the Working Group when the new @profile mechanism was worked out, and similar concerns were raised by several members of the group. It was, however, felt that the advantages offered by the @profile solution were more important than the real dangers this solution incurred, and hence the group decided to adopt the mechanism nevertheless.
Your comment, however, did offer a way forward that the group did not think about originally, namely the possibility not to generate any triples in case a @profile file cannot be reached. Your proposal was added to our official issue list, was discussed yesterday on our Working Group meeting, and was unanimously approved. The detailed wording will be part of our next Working Draft release (you can see the formal resolution at ).
I hope this solution answers your concerns; the group also thanks you for the additional insight and ways to move ahead.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:email@example.com> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
on behalf of the RDFa Working Group
CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.
PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL
 http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/25  http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-05-27  http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-05-27#Processing_Behavior_when___40_profile_document_is_not_available