- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:11:03 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Perhaps effective wording in the Core (as proposed) and a dual example in the primer which visually shows how bnode identifiers can't be relied on would ensure clarity? Best, Nathan Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > But at the telecon we agreed not to change the examples. > > Obviously I'll wait to see what this wording is, but based on previous > discussions my argument was that the bnode identifiers in the prose > and the serialisation needed to be consistent. > > Regards, > > Mark > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> The proposed resolution (which I agree with...) is not complete. I have also proposed to change the wording of at least one of the examples making use of bnodes. I believe Shane has the right formulation for it. >> >> Ivan >> >> On Oct 18, 2010, at 23:34 , Manu Sporny wrote: >> >>> If there are no objections to this proposal by this Thursday, October >>> 21st at 13:00 UTC, we will close ISSUE-37: Clarifying bnode explanation. >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/37 >>> >>> After a bit of back and forth between Ivan and Mark, it became clear >>> that Ivan would be happy with something to this effect being added to >>> the RDFa Core document: >>> >>> [[[ >>> Beyond keeping track of the differences, the processor may choose any >>> internal representation of, for example, _:a and _:b. These >>> representations are not required to be identical on two different runs >>> of the processor on the same RDFa source. Processors are also not >>> required to keep the original names when granting access to the RDF >>> graph. The only requirement is that <em>different</em> blank nodes in >>> the original source should be mapped onto <em>different</em> blank >>> nodes, and <em>identical</em> blank nodes should be mapped on >>> <em>identical</em> blank nodes when answering an API request or when >>> serializing the graph. >>> ]]] >>> >>> Discussion with Mark revealed that he would be fine with this addition >>> as well. The core of Ivan's concern was that we don't highlight the >>> possible issues with using bnodes in the specification text. The >>> paragraph above attempts to highlight the issues. >>> >>> This proposal asserts that the paragraph above, or one roughly >>> equivalent to it, be inserted into the RDFa Core specification around >>> section 8.1.1.4. This change addresses the issue and the issue should be >>> closed. >>> >>> Please comment before Thursday, October 21st at 13:00 UTC if you object >>> to this proposal. If there are no objections by that time, this issue >>> will be closed. If there are objections, the RDFa Working Group will >>> perform a straw-poll and decide whether or not to close the issue before >>> entering Last Call. >>> >>> -- manu >>> >>> -- >>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) >>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >>> blog: Saving Journalism - The PaySwarm Developer API >>> http://digitalbazaar.com/2010/09/12/payswarm-api/ >>> >> >> ---- >> 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 Tuesday, 19 October 2010 10:11:55 UTC