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

That Harry's combined text, and Jonathan Robie's suggestion both look
fine to 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.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-grddl-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-grddl-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jonathan Robie
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 9:30 AM
> To: Harry Halpin
> Cc: Dan Connolly; C. M. Sperberg-McQueen; ogbujic@ccf.org; 
> Booth, David (HP Software - Boston); Andrew Eisenberg; 
> public-grddl-comments@w3.org; w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on GRDDL (using 3rd-party XML schemas 
> with GRDDL) [OK?]
> 
> 
> 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 13:47:04 UTC