Re: Namespace document issues

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 10:50 +0200, Danny Ayers wrote:
[...]
> There's also  a potential conflict situation. I suspect we need a rule
> that says that if a transformation has been explicitly stated in the
> instance document, it SHOULD be applied, and that the transformation
> provided in the namespace doc SHOULD not (unless that too is referred
> to explicitly in the instance doc).

Umm... why not? I don't see a conflict. If there are multiple
applicable transformations, there are multiple applicable
transformations.

[oops; turns out this is the same issue as the rest of your
message. Oh well.]

> Looking at this it makes me wonder again over whether an
> "non-authoritative"  marker might be desirable.

I don't desire it. Scraping is scraping and GRDDL is not
scraping.

>  It seems likely that
> for the foreseeable future that most XML namespace docs won't list a
> transformation, nor will instance docs. But there is value in
> transforming to RDF and making that transformed data available to
> other parties, even if the original publisher hasn't licensed the
> specific data. I can still live with this being considered out of
> scope...
> 
> Cheers,
> Danny.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E