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

[#issue-output-formats] Four options for discussion

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:23:20 -0400 (EDT)
To: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609200806230.28065@tribal.metalab.unc.edu>

Since we've promised to discuss this issue of output formats today[1], 
maybe we can clarify some of  our options. Here's how I see some of them, 
although I'm sure this is incomplete at best:

1) GRDDL Processors should output only RDF in the RDF/XML concrete syntax.

2) GRDDL Processors should output the RDF/XML concrete syntax and may to 
other W3C-recommended concrete syntaxes for RDF.

3) GRDDL Processors should output to a W3C-recommended concrete syntax 
for RDF.

4) GRDDL Processors can output to any concrete syntax for RDF.

Also, we should clarify the level of our mandate - i.e. whether we should
use stronger or weaker language that "should" - and so clarify whether 
a certain output syntax is recommended or required.

So, for option 1), any GRDDL Processor that produces something besides 
RDF/XML (i.e. RDFa or n3) would be going against the recommendation. 
However, assuming RDFa or n3 becomes at some point in the future W3C Recs 
(which is likely for RDFa), then option 2) would also recommend these, 
although we suggest that RDF/XML be preferred if all other things are 
equal.  Currently option 3) is the same as option 1) since, well, RDF/XML is the only 
W3C-approved syntax, but again this could change in the future - so 3) is 
just a less contrained version of 2). 4) is the most unconstrained, as it 
allows any person to design their own syntax for RDF (possibly without 
publishing their "spec"), and then have their GRDDL output to that syntax 
- and still be within the recommendation.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-output-formats

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Fabien Gandon wrote:
>> As discussed in the previous telecon [1] one of the two outstanding issues 
>> to resolve before going to draft status for the Use Case Document is the 
>> question raised by the second part of the Scheduling Use Case [2]:
>>   Should GRDDL be used to generate other format than RDF/XML or N3-like 
>> formats and in particular can it be used, as in the example [2], to 
>> generate XHTML+RDFa which is generally considered rather as an input for 
> I just added an ID for this issue:
>  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-output-formats
> I recommend including issue names (issue-output-formats, in this case) in the
> subject of relevant mail messages.


 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:23:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:08 UTC