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: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:33:37 -0400
Message-ID: <46A94B71.3010405@ibiblio.org>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org, "Ogbuji, Chimezie" <OGBUJIC@ccf.org>

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
> Harry,
> I think you have to be careful here:
>> From: public-grddl-comments-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:public-grddl-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Harry Halpin
>> [ . . . ]
>> [For example, a GRDDL-aware agent may have a
>> security policy that prevents it from accessing GRDDL transformations
>> located in untrusted domain names, it may be unable to apply
>> transformations given in a language it does not support, and it may
>> feature additional non-normative capabilities such as allowing
>> transformations to be found in schemas not specified at the namespace
>> document.] 
>> [ . . . ]
> The problem with that wording is: Are the results still going to be a
> Faithful Rendition of the original XML document?  If the GRDDL-aware
> agent is permitted to apply transformations that the GRDDL spec cannot
> ensure were endorsed by the XML document author, then the GRDDL spec
> cannot ensure that the RDF results do represent a Faithful Rendition.  
Yep, I agree - the results using a "3rd party schema" may not be a
Faithful Rendition, although it *may* in the large sense, as the XML
Schema working group points out. Regardless, this is beyond the
capabilities of GRDDL as normatively defined.

Yet I don't think the wording is a problem - that's why the wording
should specify exactly what constitutes a "Faithful Rendition" a bit
more than it currently does in the Test Case document, which is in this
context *not* running any transformations not endorsed by the XML
document author, not supporting XSLT, not using any additional
capabilities outside those normatively defined by the GRDDL spec, etc.

However, we cannot prevent additional and optional capabilities from
being added to a GRDDL-aware agent in pursuant with a local policy. Thus
the whole point of the paragraph is to point out exactly how the
test-cases that determine conformance should be run in order to best
give a faithful rendition, and that there are currently cases where
GRDDL does (due to xmlFunctions-34 not being resolved by TAG) allow
multiple correct outputs in the faithful rendition.

> David Booth, Ph.D.
> HP Software
> +1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
> http://www.hp.com/go/software
> Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
> the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.


Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 01:35:02 UTC

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