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

> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> [ . . . ]
> Any statement of the form "A GRDDL-aware agent may ..." specifies
> conforming behavior. To then say that such behavior is not conforming
> is inconsistent.

If the verbiage is clear, I don't think it necessarily does.  The
definition of GRDDL-aware agent says: "A GRDDL-aware agent is a software
module that computes GRDDL results of information resources."  This does
not prevent a GRDDL-aware agent from producing other RDF results in
*addition* to GRDDL results.  I think we can point that out without
making a conformance statement.  But it is important that those other
RDF results not be misrepresented as GRDDL results.

> 
> 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"; 

I would also be okay with the above change, but not by itself.  I think
it is important to further clarify as you explain below:

> 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.

My key concern is just that we be very clear that the resulting RDF may
not be a Faithful Rendition and hence may not constitute licensed GRDDL
results.


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.

Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 15:58:06 UTC