W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Review of testlist1#rdfa1

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:08:35 -0500
Message-ID: <45857993.5010006@adida.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: public-grddl-wg@w3.org, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>

Dan Connolly wrote:
> I think that's overstating the situation a bit. I don't think this WG
> made any decisions about hGRDDL. (All our decisions are
> in our meeting minutes; if I'm forgetting one, a pointer will
> refute my claim conclusively.)

I may be confused about what was discussed in offline conversations and
what happened on the mailing list. I should have double-checked. Indeed,
it doesn't look like there is a decision on hGRDDL in the GRDDL public
space. Maybe we can recreate hGRDDL effectively from existing
features... that would be fantastic.

> Just use the normal GRDDL markup, just like the Atom/turtle test
> case and our decision on issue-output-formats shows.
> An RDFa document is a serialization of an RDF graph just like a
> turtle document is, no?

Maybe I'm confused by Ian's recent message that says that he's not sure
how the proper URI would be obtained by an RDFa parser [1]. If it's
possible, then that's great.

I'm looking at the Turtle example. I see the grddl:transformation triple
specifies the XSLT. The question is, can different transformations be
specified in the profile document, which the parser might be able to
select based on desired output format? From my read of the mailing list,
I think not.

> Is that stuff really not specified to your satisfaction?

I don't see specifications of what happens when there are multiple
PROFILEs in the HEAD. I see what happens when there are multiple
<LINK>s. IIRC, there was a discussion about how each profile would be
processed separately, not pipelined or combined, but I can't find the
relevant thread.

Note that "to my satisfaction" is the wrong qualifier. There are some
issues that I care about that the WG has not decided to make part of its
scope, and that's fine, GRDDL can't be everything to everyone. That
said, maybe everything I care about happens to be solved by the existing
spec, which would be great. I would be extremely happy if I had misread
the spec in that respect :)


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Dec/0043
Received on Sunday, 17 December 2006 17:08:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:09 UTC