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

RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?]

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:26:53 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C20290B058@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>

More questions on the draft of  2007/04/26 23:03:29:
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec


5. Section 3 has a special case rule for RDF/XML documents:
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_rdfxbase
[[
If an information resource IR is represented by a conforming RDF/XML
document[RDFX], then the RDF graph represented by that document is a
GRDDL result of IR.
]]
This rule treats RDF/XML serializations specially, whereas Section 6
says that result formats other than RDF/XML are permitted:
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_txprop
[[
The rule above covers the case of a transformation property that relates
an XPath document node to an RDF graph via an RDF/XML document.
Transformations may use other, unspecified, mechanisms.
]]
Is the Section 3 rule also supposed to be similarly generalized, to
permit non-RDF/XML serializations to represent GRDDL results (as a base
case)?  (I hope not, because I think that would be problematic.)


6. Again, regarding the special case rule for RDF/XML documents in
Section 3:
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_rdfxbase
[[
If an information resource IR is represented by a conforming RDF/XML
document[RDFX], then the RDF graph represented by that document is a
GRDDL result of IR.
]]
If the namespace rule http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_nstx is
defined to look for a GRDDL result that includes a
namespaceTransformation property, then I can see the purpose of this
rule.  But is there any other reason for this rule?  It seems like it
would arbitrarily prevent someone from doing a GRDDL transformation on
their RDF/XML document that they explicity said they want to do.  I
don't know exactly *why* someone might want to do it -- perhaps to
convert from one dialect of RDF to another, or to change old URIs to new
URIs -- but I'm reluctante to forbid somethine unless there's a reason
to do so.  OTOH I am unclear from Brian McBride's comments
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Mar/0011.
html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Mar/0023.
html
whether it is even *possible* to specify a GRDDL transformation from a
valid RDF/XML document, so I'm not sure my question is relevant.


7. Section 3 defines the namespace rule
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_nstx
to look for a namespaceTransformation property on the GRDDL *result* of
the namespace document.   That seems like a rather convoluted way to
associate the namespace URI with GRDDL transformations.  Is there a
reason why we need this recursion?  This is a very different approach
than is used for the non-namespace case where a document directly
specifies its own GRDDL transformations in the grddl:transformation
attribute.  For example, why doesn't the namespace rule, for example,
look directly at the root of the namespace document for a *pair* of
attributes such as:
[[
  grddl:namespace="http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/p3q-ns-example"
 
grddl:namespaceTransformation="http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/grokP3Q.xs
l"
]]
(The above is intended to indicate that each absolut-ified token in
grddl:namespaceTransformation is a GRDDL transformation for documents
using the given grddl:namespace URI.)  Is there a reason why an approach
like this (which parallels the approach for tne non-namespace case)
would be inadequate, infeasible or inferior to the recursive mechanism
in the current draft?


Thanks

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software 
 
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 07:28:54 GMT

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