W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: RDF Model vs Serialization (Language) [OK?]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:41:19 -0500
To: "Hammond, Tony" <T.Hammond@nature.com>
Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1175697679.18153.333.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 16:04 +0000, Hammond, Tony wrote:
> Hi There:
> 
> I didn't see this covered any place in the mail archives but please
> excuse if it was. And please excuse the following if I'm just completely
> off the wall here.
> 
> But seems to me there is some confusion throughout the WD about RDF the
> data model and RDF/XML one serialization of (or language for) the RDF
> data model.


I've given this some thought and discussed it with the Working Group
(minutes are a bit sketchy...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Mar/att-0193/28-grddl-wg-minutes.html )
The Working Group left it to this editor's discretion as to how
to address your comments, as they don't seem to suggest any
substantive changes to the GRDDL design.

While the usage in the introduction is a bit loose and informal, 
it seems to me that the parts of the WD that need to be precise
are sufficiently precise to result in a reasonable degree
of interoperability, especially since the GRDDL specification
is supplemented by a primer (http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-primer/  )
for readers that are more interested in a how-to introduction, and
a collection of test cases (http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/ )
for implementers.

We did take a quick look at the GRDDL primer
in light of your comments, and we're considering some edits (e.g. a
new diagram) to introduce RDF more clearly to the GRDDL audience.

Back to this GRDDL spec draft... 
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-grddl-20070302/

The text seems OK to me as it is in each of the specific cases you
point out. If you have other specific text changes to suggest,
I'm interested to consider them.

Otherwise, I'd like to know if you're satisfied by this response
to your comments.





> Section 1:
> 
> 1. "There are dialects of XHTML, XML and RDF that are used ..."
> 
> Shouldn't that be RDF/XML? Can one really have a dialect of a model? I
> can imagine having a dialect of RDF/XML, i.e. a profile of RDF rendered
> as RDF/XML, e.g. XMP.
> 
> And also the other two are markup languages. I don't think the
> underlying data model - the XML InfoSet - is intended here.
> 
> 2. "Here's the information contained in the XML fragments above, this
> time expressed as RDF:"
> 
> Well, no. "expressed as RDF/XML". (This one, I am sure is correct.)
> 
> 3. "or one of the other RDF syntaxes"
> 
> I'm unsure about this. Can one strictly have a syntax for a model? Or is
> that a syntax for a serialization of the model?
> 
> 4. "GRDDL provides a relatively inexpensive mechanism for bootstrapping
> RDF content from uniform XML dialects,"
> 
> Again, isn't this sloppy? (But here I could be wrong. Maybe I'm just
> getting very paranoid.)
> 
> 5. "Content authors can nominate the transformations for producing RDF
> from their content"
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> 6. "the transformation will provide a faithful rendition in RDF"
> 
> Now here I really do think this means some serialization of RDF (well
> OK, it's likely to be RDF/XML)
> 
> 7. "that the transformation will provide a faithful RDF rendition"
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> 
> Section 2:
> 
> 1. "which are expected to transform the source document into RDF"
> 
> RDF/XML?
> 
> etc., etc.
> 
> Sorry to be a pedant. But to echo katemonkey here:
> 
> 	"Web standards help designers and developers create the pedantic
> web."
> 	http://thetenwordreview.com/reviews/programming/web+standards
> 
> :~)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tony
> 

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 14:41:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:43 GMT