- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:43:50 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
I implement this processor graph vocabulary in my Ruby-based RDFa parsers: [1] and [2] (although I need to update the namespace definition). Pass a ;processor_graph option referencing a Graph or Repository and it will add statements for required PG production, as well as informational statements useful in debugging document parsing issues. Additionally, an XPath pointer to the associated document context is added using [ a ptr:XPathPointer; ptr:expression "xpath"] is used, as suggested in the example. Gregg [1] https://github.com/gkellogg/rdf-rdfa [2] https://github.com/gkellogg/rdf_context On Feb 4, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Guys, > > I have not received any comment, neither pro or con, on the processor graph vocabulary mails: > > - The proposal for a vocabulary[1] and putting it into the document[2] > - Whether it is indeed necessary to make a change on the document in view of what is there[3] > > I would like to discharge these actions. If I see no objection to [1][2], I will do that early next week. Toby, it would be great if you commented on [3] to see if any action is needed on that one at all... > > Thanks! > > Ivan > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Processor_Graph_Vocabulary > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0007.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0006.html > > ---- > 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 Friday, 4 February 2011 16:46:06 UTC