- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:49:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Murray Maloney wrote: > Actually, the neutral terms "source document" or "input document" would be > great. > > These terms would apply equally to a document that is a candidate as well as > it > would to a document that was not a candidate. I observe that it would be > possible > for a document living on my file system to be a candidate because I have > cached > copies of the namespace or HTML profile, while another GRDDL-aware processor > might not recognize that document's candidacy because it did not have access > to my namespace or profile. My point being that a document's suitability for > GRDDL > processing can be ephemeral and context-dependent. I don't follow how this suggests that the qualifier 'GRDDL' source document isn't appropriate. In the scenario you give, the determination of a document's candidacy is made by a GRDDL-aware processor that has a very specific set of things it is looking for, if it finds none, the document *isn't* a candidate for GRDDL processing. To me 'GRDDL source document' suggests a document that is a candidate for GRDDL processing as a result of a criteria independent of whether that document is an RDF/XML document, an XSLT document, an XHTML document, etc.. > Therefore it is just > another > source or input document until it encounters a GRDDL-aware processor that > recognizes it as a candidate for GRDDL processing. Right, but you'd agree that the criteria for this candidacy is very specific? Chimezie Ogbuji Lead Systems Analyst Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Cleveland Clinic Foundation 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26 Cleveland, Ohio 44195 Office: (216)444-8593 ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 13:49:06 UTC