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

GRDDL Spec Review

From: Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:42:45 +0100
Message-ID: <455C3295.5070808@sophia.inria.fr>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Hello,

First, I want to apologize for not being very reactive these days.
Below is a review of the current Spec document that I finally managed to 
read linearly in the plane.

Cheers,

Fabien 


*Abstract :*
"and for linking to an algorithm, typically represented in XSLT,"
I would say "linking to one or more algorithms" since several 
transformations can be given.

"(...) more recently known as microformats"
Don't we intend to be broader?

*1. Introduction: Data and Documents *
"There are dialects of XHTML, XML and RDF"
I can understand dialects for XML and RDF but I find it surprising to 
talk of dialects of XHTML and to put them at the same level.

"RDFa and microformats offer simple (...)"
Shouldn't we mention embedded RDF too?

"While this breadth of expression is quite liberating"
This sounds like the expression of RDFa or microformats themselves; I 
would rather say something like:  "While the diversity of these dialects 
is quite liberating"

*TEI example:* The closing tag <title> is missing an "e".

*Resource Descriptions*
First paragraph: I would include the triple itself in the text e.g. 
(#TheStand, #hasAuthor, #StephenKing)

The link with the second paragraph is not natural when reading the text 
linearly. Something is missing may be to mention that the RDF/XML cannot 
easily be inserted in other dialects and therefore that there is a need 
for an extraction of RDF from these dialects.

"The use of XSLT to generate XHTML (...)"
I find this sentence useless in the context of this spec and it sounds 
"gratuitous" to me in the sense that nothing in this context is related 
or backing-up this claim. IMHO of non native speaker, its phrasing is 
not really in the style I would expect in a spec.

"separating structured content from its authoritative meaning (or 
semantics)"
I don't follow this sentence:
A - whereas the migration from just HTML to XML+XSLT+XHTML+CSS did shift 
the initial HTML representation to a separated representation (XML) + 
XSLT + (XHTML + CSS) the GRDDL proposal does not change the initial 
representation dialect;
B - XHTML is itself a source for GRDDL and I find it confusing to say 
that GRDDL separates the content from its meaning while the 
representation remains XHTML.
C - separating content from authoritative meaning sounds odd when one of 
the point I heard several times in the GRDDL group is that the GRDDL way 
to explicitly specify the transformation in the source actually ensures 
that the extracted RDF will have the meaning specified by the 
authoritative source of the structured content; in other words to me, 
this sentence makes GDDL sound like scrapping which I would personally 
like to be addressed in GRDDL but which I also now know not to be in the 
scope of GRDDL.

*GRDDL Use Cases*
There is neither need to expend the GRDDL acronym here nor to explain it 
is a mechanism for bla bla bla i.e. I would remove "(Gleaning ... 
algorithms."

*2. Adding GRDDL to well-formed XML*
"by adorning the root element with a"
I am sure that it sounds wonderful for native speakers but I think the 
sentence would be more internationalized if we replaced this expression 
by "by adding to the root element a"
*
GRDDL in well-formed XML*
The example should be commented / explained i.e. something like "The 
declaration of the grddl namespace indicates this XML document can be 
transformed to extract RDF from it. The transformation attributes lists 
the transformations that can be applied to obtain the RDF representation 
of the embedded knowledge."

*Using GDDL with an XML Schema namespace document*
In the example code I would add the rdf namespace.
There is a "d" missing in the prefix of the last closing tag 
"</xsD:annotation>"
*
Multiple transformations in XHTML*
I would replace "decoding algorithm" by "transformation"

Some of the HTML examples have the <!DOCTYPE ... > clause while others 
haven't IMHO we should choose once for all if we include it or not; 
personally I would remove it as it clutter the example for no real added 
value.
*
5. GRDDL for HTML Profiles*
The link of the last paragraph with the previous ones is not clear. 
IMHO, there is an articulation missing.

*6. Transformation Algorithms*
Typo: "should have A available representations"

-- 
Fabien - http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/fabien/
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 09:44:22 GMT

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