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

out-of-band transformation information

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:11:53 -0500
To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1161868313.4182.431.camel@dirk>

We recently got this comment suggesting that GRDDL should
provide a way to give out-of-band transformation information...

specifying GRDDL transformation for document with no transformation
attribute? Bob DuCharme (Wednesday, 25 October)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2006OctDec/0010.html

Brian McBride made a similar comment back in January...

"I think there are at least two things missing:

2) a way to describe a transformation on a (set of) pages without access
to the pages themselves or their schema. "
 -- Brian McBride, 27 Jan 2006
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Jan/0049

Fabien supported DuCharme's comment in a reply.

Chime added a point that is closer to my position...

"Well, a transformation nominated / defined by the 
producer (in this case) would be more authorative than one nominated by consumer 
(especially if the content is in a specific vocabulary), wouldn't you say? "
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2006OctDec/0013.html


As a process note, I prefer that WG members don't debate one another
in the comments list. We should present a consistent view there.
And that means that no one of us should take a position that
others in the WG are likely to disagree with. The comments list
is mostly a place to try to answer comments by pointing into the
documents we have published.

On the technical substance, out-of-band transformation is scraping,
and please let's keep that separate from GRDDL. GRDDL is about
data that the publisher says, authoritatively, is RDF data. i.e.
you can follow your nose from the document to the transformation
to RDF.

There is clearly an issue here, but I am not inclined to add it
to the issue list in the GRDDL specification.
I'd like someone to give this out-of-band transformation stuff
a separate name, since it's clearly not useful to pretend the
issue doesn't exist. I don't mind discussing it in this WG to
some extent, though if we go very far with it, we'll need to
change our charter.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 13:12:08 GMT

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