Re: GRDDL and OWL/XML

Harry Halpin wrote:

> I think the central question is whether or not at this point the GRDDL 
> WG recommends that at least one GRDDL transform point to either:
> 
> 1) A non-executable list of implementations
> 2) An executable transform, likely an XSLT one.
> 
> One could of course have *two* GRDDL transforms, one that points to 1) 
> and one that points to 2), but we are not sure how 1) would behave with 
> current GRDDL transforms.
> 
> I think almost everyone except Bijan and possibly Jeremy agreed that at 
> the current moment, 2) would be more useful than 1).  

I agree with this 2) better than 1).

But I liked 2) & 1) more than just 2)

But unless any other wg member agrees with me, I think I've recorded my 
view here, and I'll concur with the group to keep consensus

Jeremy