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: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>
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
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707301215040.29100@tribal.metalab.unc.edu>

Fine with me!

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Jonathan Robie wrote:

>
> 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
>>>
>>> 
>> 
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 16:15:39 GMT

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