On 2008-06 -19, at 14:21, Ralph R. Swick wrote:
At 08:54 AM 6/18/2008 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
...
You could say, (2) "All servers MUST put the namespace GRDDL, and
clients MAY use namespace GRDDL, or may use inherent knowledge of the
spec." That would work in all cases.
...
So I suspect you want go with (2). To define RDFa conformance.
Obviously, people might want to make documents in the short term
which
work equally well by conforming to the GRDDL spec (document profile
method) and by RDFa but that is a distraction.
In today's telecon, the group resolved the following editorial change
in section 4.1 Document Conformance [1]:
RESOLUTION: move the two items "SHOULD be a DOCTYPE" and
"SHOULD be a @profile" from Section 4.1 to a new Informational
Appendix "Deployment Advice"
-- http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html#item01
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rdfa-syntax-20080221/#docconf
The intent of this change is to reinforce that the use of the GRDDL
namespace transform is sufficient to declare that the triples
specified in this document are part of the document semantics.
This was the intent of the language in the Last Call Working Draft.
Good. I hope the test suite has lots of example with no document
profile.
...
This concern is, how do I know that an RDFa
reader will not extract triples from a pre-RDFa HTML document
that were not intended by the author?
The Working Group's position is that the triples extracted by the
current processing model from existing XHTML1 documents are
the RDF expression of semantics that have been in the HTML
specification. (I understand that you recalled a demonstration
over a year ago of a prototype RDFa processor that extracted
more triples than are specified by this RDFa processing model.
Those triples were not part of an RDFa Working Draft and are
not part of this RDFa Last Call specification and therefore not
part of the document semantics as defined by RDFa.)
ok, Thanks for the clarification.
...
We only mean this to enable RDFa processors to also process
microformats, if they so choose.
Ah I see. "Default graph" -- the meaning of the document. if
someone
makes some RDFb spec, can it not add more triples still?
We felt that not leaving this door open might lead some folks to
interpret RDFa as ruling out an RDF interpretation for microformats,
which is not our intention.
good
We could not find a cleaner way to phrase it without making the spec
much more complicated.
well, just writing that explanation helped me -- maybe it could go in
the spec informationally.
...
... i think the
important thing is that the RDFa-derived graph is seen as being
asserted by the document, but other things can also be. I think we
agree on that. I don't think the text in the spec conveyed it.
The group additionally resolved the following editorial change
in section 4.3. RDFa Processor Conformance [2].
"RESOLUTION: Replace sentence "This is called the [default graph]"
with "This specification uses the term <tref>default graph</tref> to
mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the
<a href="#s_model">Processing Model</a> section."
-- http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html#item02
[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rdfa-syntax-20080221/
#processorconf>
Ok. I think those changes resolve the issues I had with the Last Call
document.
-Ralph
