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

Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (namespac document)

From: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:02:43 -0700
Message-ID: <461982A3.4030402@dajobe.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: public-grddl-comments@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 14:13 -0700, Dave Beckett wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-grddl-20070302/
> 
> Thanks for the careful review. This reply just
> addresses one part of your message...
> 
> [...]
>> S9
>> [comment]
>> What is the sentence
>>     "The namespace document includes RDF data about the terms in the GRDDL
>>     Vocuabulary, but these RDF data do not include any triples whose predicate
>>     is grddl:profileTransformation."
>> for?  Is it saying that it won't define profile transforms.  What about
>> it defining namespace transforms?
> 
> That sentence is supposed to address the comments you made earlier,
> which you seem to re-iterate below:

I didn't make that connection.

>> General
>>
>> [comment]
>> I don't know where this would go, but can you add something like 
>> this, if it is true:
>>     http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view is used as an identifier
>>     The results of resolving this URI, or the grddl result of
>>     this URI are not required to be read by GRDDL agents.
> 
> The only way the results of resolving that URI would matter
> to GRDDL aware agents is if it contained grddl:profileTransformation
> triples. We guarantee that whatever it says, it doesn't
> have any of those.
> 
> Does that seems sufficient?

Partially, it seems a roundabout way of defining the explanation.

Let me try to understand it by restating.  GRDDL aware agents may resolve
that URI and get extra information (even via GRDDL) but the triples will not
effect any other GRDDL result.

I guess the nub of my comment is:
  May a valid GRDDL aware agent ignore resolving
    http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view and always generate all valid GRDDL
  results?

I also asked:
>>     Are the contents you get when resolving the URI
>>     http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view part of the GRDDL recommendation?

If so, I'd expect the contents to be static and could be hard-coded into
applications.  If not static, what are the expected changes?
(Given that above the only allowed changes are defined to not affect GRDDL
processing).

The GRDDL profile URI is a significant URI for the GRDDL specification, so
this is why I want to check if there is anything special going on with it's
use and any contents that it may contain.

Dave
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGGYKgQ+ySUE9xlVoRArE/AJ9/Zw0e9T0pGSt557LcYzKPND1WdwCeOowj
C6vnNBaNbvu2ygu0YxclHtw=
=yRBL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 00:03:26 GMT

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