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

fixed GRDDL formal rules... Re: hope to hear from you today about the GRDDL spec

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 03:09:22 -0600
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1162717762.8279.157.camel@dirk>

On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 00:39 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 14:03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 14:38 -0400, Ben Adida wrote:
> > > Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > > I think you missed a subtlety.
> > > > Any GRDDL result of ?NSDOC is a result of ?D by the 1st bullet.
> > > 
> > > So this means that you can declare a namespaceTransformation in the
> > > instance document? I guess that doesn't hurt, but it's fairly confusing.
> > > I'm not sure what the value of this generalized formalization is.
> > 
> > I think there's a reason, but I'm not sure I remember it.
> > I was in quite a fugue when I came up with this formulation,
> > and I'm not sure I can return to that state this week.
> > I hope I can explain it in due course.
> 
> On second thought, I think you're right. But I'm not
> sure yet, so I'm not going to change it just now.

I achieved fugue state again tonight and changed it.

[[
If an information resource IR has an XML representation whose root
element has a namespace name NS and for any TX, the resource identified
by NS has a GRDDL result that is the merge of { ?NSDOC
<http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#namespaceTransformation> ?TX } with
any other RDF graphs, then TX is a GRDDL transformation of IR
]]
 http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#ns-bind
 1.150  2006/11/05 08:56:53

The rules feel much sturdier now. I think this eliminates
the need for separate slides...

 ACTION: DanC to prepare slides on grddl-rules.n3

Oh... and by way of...
  ACTION: DanC to create a "normative only" view of the GRDDL spec

I have generated a formal/mechanical version of the rules:

 http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/grddl-rules3.n3

It's non-normative because it uses terms from XQuery functions
and operators and from swap/cwm/n3 that I don't want GRDDL
to depend on normatively. The prose rules don't depend
on those; they only depend on XPath 1. I still intend
to extract the normative-only view in due course.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 09:09:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:46 GMT