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: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:46:08 -0500
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org, "Ogbuji, Chimezie" <OGBUJIC@ccf.org>
Message-Id: <1185547568.4187.867.camel@pav>

On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 23:07 -0400, Harry Halpin wrote:
> 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.

It's inconsistent.

Any statement of the form "A GRDDL-aware agent may ..." specifies
conforming behavior. To then say that such behavior is not conforming
is inconsistent.

Rather than "allowing
transformations to be found in schemas not specified at 
the namespace document" it would make more sense to say
"allowing namespace documents to be looked up using
non-standard mechanism"; e.g. somebody could use
a local/custom URN resolver or a catalog or whatever to
overlay the public web with a local mapping of URIs
to schemas. Then the result is a faithful rendition
inasmuch as the author of the source document agrees
that the non-standard lookup mechanism gives a
reasonable representation of the namespace document.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 14:46:31 GMT

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