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

RE: Rules bug?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:26:59 -0600
To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1163687219.3997.22.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 10:22 +0000, McBride, Brian wrote:
> > > Consider IR1 which has two XML represenations XML-svg and XML-xhtml.
> > > 
> > > The root node of XML-svg is linked to the GRDDL transformat 
> > t-svg and 
> > > so t-svg is a GRDDL transformation of IR. (S1)
> > > 
> > > The root node of XML-xhtml is linked to the GRDDL transformation 
> > > t-xhtml and so t-xhtml is a GRDDL transformation of IR.  (S1)
> > > 
> > > If t-xhtml applied to the root node of XML-svg produces and 
> > RDF graph 
> > > G-svg-xhtml, then G-svg-xhtml is a GRDDL result of IR1. (S2)
> > 
> > Correct. Both are GRDDL results of IR1.
> 
> Did you spot that I applied the transform referenced in the xhtml to the
> svg document?

No, I was reading too fast. (I hesitated to give an opinion at
all without working thru the details in a test case... oh well.)

Hmm... I could perhaps change the rules so that grddl:trasformation
works more like grddl:txlink; I wonder if anybody in the
community is relying on the domain of grddl:transformation
being an information resource rather than a representation...
I definitely need do do some testing.

>   The spec wording currently allows this.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 14:27:16 GMT

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