Comments on: RDFa API draft http://ivan-herman.name/2010/06/08/rdfa-api-draft/ Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:40:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Jacek http://ivan-herman.name/2010/06/08/rdfa-api-draft/#comment-6119 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:16:03 +0000 http://ivan-herman.name/?p=589#comment-6119 A longer discussion indeed. I wish I could be there when it happens… 8-)

]]> By: Ivan Herman http://ivan-herman.name/2010/06/08/rdfa-api-draft/#comment-6117 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:19:05 +0000 http://ivan-herman.name/?p=589#comment-6117 Ah, I understand. The current structure certainly allows for a generic GRDDL parser and it is indeed a good idea to make that explicit in the documentation. Whether it should be a requirement… that is a longer discussion…

]]> By: Jacek http://ivan-herman.name/2010/06/08/rdfa-api-draft/#comment-6116 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:43:29 +0000 http://ivan-herman.name/?p=589#comment-6116 Ah, I suspected I was being cryptic. In plain words, just like there could be an hCard parser, there could also be a generic GRDDL parser (which could, for some pages with the right headers, replace vocabulary-specific extra parsers). In fact, it could even accompany the RDFa parser for default processing (required or recommended for conformance) so the triple store would immediately contain triples “gleaned” through GRDDL.

Hope I’m making more sense now…

]]> By: Ivan Herman http://ivan-herman.name/2010/06/08/rdfa-api-draft/#comment-6113 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 04:17:32 +0000 http://ivan-herman.name/?p=589#comment-6113 Jacek, to be honest, I do not understand your question…

]]> By: Jacek http://ivan-herman.name/2010/06/08/rdfa-api-draft/#comment-6111 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:28:03 +0000 http://ivan-herman.name/?p=589#comment-6111 Did someone say document.data.createParser(“GRDDL”,store).parse()?
Can that be at least a SHOULD for conformance, please?

]]>