Re: GRDDL and OWL/XML

On 20 May 2008, at 15:11, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> A few responses below. This is starting to sound like a classic  
> straw man

? A straw man argument is a weak argument that no one would hold that  
one puts up in order to knock down and thus claim victory. I fail to  
see any place where I've done that.

> argument or at the very least like an irreconcilable difference in
> philosophy of distributed web-based applications.

Could be.
[snip]
>> I shall, perhaps, still encourage it in certain
>> circumstances (e.g., ad hoc situations where the processor really
>> wants clients to be able to use an XML format but really wants to
>> plug into RDF tools). But I don't know. It hardly seems a mission
>> critical service.
>
> Hmmm.  You must not have not read the use cases document (or the  
> charter
> even).

Chimezie, you cannot require someone read ancillary documents in  
order to understand what's required for conformance to a spec. Or you  
can, but that's ipso facto a confession that the spec is poor.

A quick perusal of the use case documents reveal no evidence of a  
need for downloadable code.

>> I thought part of the point of GRDDL documents was to specify the
>> correct behavior of GRDDL clients. If you have an executable, then
>> that pretty strictly delineates the behavior. (Indeed, is it
>> conforming to *not* use the actual executable?)
>
> Bijan, this *is* the point of executable programs: to strictly  
> delineate
> behavior.



>   I wonder if you are aware that is a core pattern within web
> architecture:
[snip]

I'm well aware of that but don't consider it

>> But, ok, if the conclusion you want me to draw is that GRDDL is
>> inappropriate for W3C specs, I guess I reluctantly will draw that.
>
> I think (judging from your line of argument) that there is no  
> *principled*
> means to prevent you from drawing that conclusion.

Did you get garbled here? So you are saying that the only way for you  
to prevent me from drawing that conclusion is to appeal to  
unprincipled means (e.g., bullying, insult, whatever) rather than  
principled means (e.g., argument, evidence, etc.)?

I'm shocked that you would say that. I presume it's a typo. But a  
quick skim of what follows leaves me unsure.

Since I don't like unprincipled means, I guess I'll stop here :)

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 15:43:04 UTC