Re: how about a mix of GRDDL tutorial and use cases?

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Harry Halpin wrote:

> Our charter specifically mentions RDF/A. embedded RDF, XML Schema, and
> microformats. And we need a fairly comprehensive set of examples and
> transforms, but we can't guarantee or "standardize" our transforms as
> that is out of scope. However, our examples and test suite should work,
> and to the extent they work people using GRDDL  may adopt  our transforms.

This is one area of the charter that I've wanted to ask about for some 
time.  With regards to XML Schema, the charter says:

"tutorial materials and use cases sufficient to bootstrap adoption of 
GRDDL .. with XML Schemas"

It's not clear if that means (1) using GRDDL to glean RDF from an XML 
schema (using a pre-written profile), (2) using some hueristic to 
'generate' a GRDDL profile for instance documents that conform to the XML schema, or 
(3) Using GRDDL with 'stand-alone' XML vocabularies documented by 
existing XML schemas (as opposed to microformats, which are embedded in XHTML specifically)?

I have some observations / concerns with each interpretation.  If it's 
(1), I wonder how much semantic content you can glean from a dialect specific to expressing 
structural (and datatype) constraints, what would be the target RDF 
vocabulary, and what would you gain that you don't already have from 
processors that understand the XML schema dialect?

If it's (2), I'm *very* interested and it is an unprecedented area we've 
(the research department I work for) invested quite a bit of research & 
development into, but the problem statement (as least as it currently is in the charter) is quite vague.

If it's (3), I'm assuming the idea is tutorial material and best practices 
for writing GRDDL profiles (XSLT profiles, most likely) for 
well-established vocabularies with well-established schemas (but not 
neccessarily in an automated fashion as with the previous interpretation) 
such as DocBook, MathML, or any of the other major XML dialects mentioned 
in Tim Bray's very well written article [1] "Dont Invent XML Languages" or 
a follow-up thread [2] with some rather relevant commentary by alot of 
people that know much more about XML vocabulary modelling than I do.

[1] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/01/08/No-New-XML-Languages
[2] http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2006-01-12/Learn_how_

I'm sorta trying to get my head around what the intent was for that 
particular reference to XML schemas in the GRDDL charter, especially if it 
represents a 'requirement' we must meet.

Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org

Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 15:02:27 UTC