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

Re: Comments on GRDDL (using 3rd-party XML schemas with GRDDL) [OK?]

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707181802420.14819@tribal.metalab.unc.edu>

An aside, although the official response will come from Dan himself.

The reason GRDDL does not use third-party schemas is because it already 
has a mechanism (for both XHTML and XML) for pointing to third-party 
transformations. Since the only reason GRDDL uses  a schema at the 
namespace URI is to find a transformation (as it uses no other part of 
the schema), it seems reasonable to assume that if a  schema is 
somewhere else rather than at a namespace URI, then the user can simply 
directly point to the transformation given by the "third-party" schema. 
This keeps indirection to minimum.

So, GRDDL is not ignoring schemas not at the namespace URI, and if those 
schemas point to a transformation, GRDDL can directly use that 


  On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jim Melton wrote:

> Dan,
> You may not understand why people would expect..., but it is obvious on the 
> face of things that SOME people do expect it, witnessed by the comments and 
> the repeated requests made to you.  If we, members of W3C and of at least 
> room-temperature IQs, think this is something apparently missing, then it 
> seems likely that at least some other readers might have the same 
> misunderstanding.
> Since it is your group's decision not to "pay attention" to schemas in your 
> spec, I'm not going to try to persuade you to change that decision (at least 
> not in this message), but that does not mean that you shouldn't acknowledge 
> the expectations of some of your readers and at least say why you've made 
> that choice.
> Hope this helps,
>   Jim
> At 7/18/2007 09:21 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 18:51 -0600, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Schema documents used for validation or annotation are not always
>> > mentioned explicitly in the document to be validated and cannot
>> > necessarily be found by dereferencing the namespace name (since
>> > the namespaces spec offers no guarantee that it can be
>> > dereferenced).  Even when some schema documents CAN be found that
>> > way, those are not necessarily the schema documents the user
>> > wishes or needs to use.
>> I don't understand why people would expect GRDDL to do
>> anything with such schemas.
>> In what sense should such schemas be considered part of the
>> meaning of the document?
>> > Users of XML Schema accustomed to using schema documents to guide
>> > the annotation of document instances are likely to be surprised
>> > by the failure of a spec like GRDDL to support a common use case.
>> I don't think I understand what use case you have in mind at all.
>> Could you elaborate, sort of in story form?
>>   Bob produces a purchase order document and ...
>> or
>>   Linda makes a patient record document and ...
>> Preferably the story will include at least two parties: one
>> that produced the document, and one that consumes it, and
>> it should somehow be clear that the producer has licensed
>> the data that the consumer gets out of their GRDDL agent, per
>> the "Faithful Renditions" section.
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_rend
>> --
>> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> ========================================================================
> Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL)     Phone: +1.801.942.0144
>  Co-Chair, W3C XML Query WG; F&O (etc.) editor    Fax : +1.801.942.3345
> Oracle Corporation        Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com
> 1930 Viscounti Drive      Standards email: jim dot melton at acm dot org
> Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA          Personal email: jim at melton dot name
> ========================================================================
> =  Facts are facts.   But any opinions expressed are the opinions      =
> =  only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody   =
> =  else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand.  =
> ======================================================================== 


 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 22:09:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:02 UTC