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: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:30:02 -0400
Message-ID: <46ADE7DA.3030109@redhat.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, ogbujic@ccf.org, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org

Hi Harry,

This looks good, except for one phrase.

> Furthermore, in addition to being GRDDL-aware, an agent may feature optional capabilities such as allowing a schema and an associated transformation not at the namespace URI to be looked up using a non-standard mechanism,

The phrase "non-standard mechanism" might be interpreted as a mechanism 
not defined in the W3C XML Schema specification, and I think the new 
language is being added at least partly to make sure that the *standard* 
mechanisms such as schema location hints can be used. I'd suggest 
changing this to "allowing a schema and an associated transformation not 
at the namespace URI to be looked up using the mechanisms defined in the 
W3C XML Schema specification."

Jonathan


Harry Halpin wrote:
> [snip]
>
> So, here's my re-take on the wording changes that I think takes into
> account DanC's and DavidB's concerns with my original set of changes.
>
> "The GRDDL specification states that any transformation identified by an author of a GRDDL source document will provide a Faithful Rendition <http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_rend> of the information expressed in the source document. The specification also grants a GRDDL-aware agent the license <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-grddl-20070302/#sec_agt> to
> makes a determination of whether or not to apply a particular transformation guided by user interaction, a local security policy, or the agent's capabilities. [For example, a GRDDL-aware agent may have a security policy that prevents it from accessing GRDDL transformations located in untrusted domain names or it may be unable to apply transformations given in a language it does not support, and so it may be unable to produce the faithful rendition. Furthermore, in addition to being GRDDL-aware, an agent may feature optional capabilities such as allowing a schema and an associated transformation not at the namespace URI to be looked up using a non-standard mechanism, and the results of applying such a transformation may not be a faithful rendition.]  In defining these tests it was assumed that the GRDDL-aware agent being tested is using a security policy which does *not* prevent it from applying transformations identified in each test [, supports XSLT 1.0, and does not rely on any capabilities outside those defined in the GRDDL Specification]. Such an agent should produce the GRDDL result associated with each normative test, except as specified immediately below."
>
>
> This is addressed to the XML/XSL Query WG, DanC, and DavidB, and Chime -
> since as Editor Chime has to make the actual edits.
>
>
>   
>> I assume that may different parties might license different sets of
>> valid inferences from a given schema or document. What determines
>> which of these inferences are "faithful renditions"? I understand the
>> mechanics of how these transformations are found, but I'm trying to
>> understand the user model.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>     
>
>
>   
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 13:31:43 GMT

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