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

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
> Harry,
>
>   
>> [ . . . ]
>> However, we cannot prevent additional and optional capabilities from
>> being added to a GRDDL-aware agent in pursuant with a local 
>> policy.  [ . . . ]
>>     
>
> If I'm understanding you correctly, the intent of your suggested change
> is to point out that GRDDL-aware agents can do things that are beyond
> what the GRDDL spec licenses -- such as applying a 3rd party
> transformation -- but if they do then the RDF results are not guaranteed
> to be a Faithful Rendition and for this reason they should not be called
> "GRDDL results".  If so, this sounds like a good idea, but I think the
> wording change should be a bit more explicit about this.  
>
> So how about adding one more sentence to what you suggested, so that the
> chnage would read:
> [[
> 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.  Users should be bear in mind that RDF results
> produced using such non-normative capabilities may not represent
> a Faithful Rendition, and therefore may not represent conformant GRDDL
> results.
> ]]
>   
That's fine with me.
> 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

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426

Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 03:08:52 UTC