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

I'm not sure myself - I believe there is a particular use-case that BenA
and to a lesser extent DanC knows about that will clarify things - so
we'll wait for one of them to describe it in detail.

Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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
>


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426

Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 15:06:16 UTC