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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:36:34 -0600
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1162881394.8279.333.camel@dirk>

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 11:13 -0500, Murray Maloney wrote:
> >[[
> >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

> Maybe it's the time of day, but that doesn't help me at all.
> I think that I might need several slides just to understand
> what is being said above.

OK, I elaborated it considerably.

Revision 1.153  2006/11/07 06:26:34  connolly
- elaborated formal spec in section 2 on grddl with well-formed XML
- consolidated examples in section 2
- moved explanation of mechanical rules to an appendix
- added a visual style for normative assertions

I ended up making a new example while I was at it. Oops;
I could have made it more like the King/Stand example
in the introduction. Maybe I will in due course...
Meanwhile, do the rules make more sense with the prose
around them?

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 06:36:48 UTC

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