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

GRDDL Spec Review (editor's draft Date: 2006/11/16 14:17:13)

From: Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:48:00 +0100
Message-ID: <455DAF80.3020402@sophia.inria.fr>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Below is an updated version of my comments for "Gleaning Resource 
Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL) editor's draft $Date: 
2006/11/16 14:17:13 $"


*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"
Does not GRDDL intend to be broader than microformats?


*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"


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


*2. Adding GRDDL to well-formed XML*
"by adorning the root element with a"
I am sure that it sounds wonderful for native speakers (and I like it 
too) but I think the  sentence would be more internationalized if we 
were to replace this expression by a platonic "by adding to the root 
element a" ;-)


*3. Using GRDDL with XML Namespace Documents*
  *Using GRDDL 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 "GRDDL transformation"


NB: 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.
-- 
Fabien - http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/fabien/
Received on Friday, 17 November 2006 12:48:10 GMT

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