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

Re: Review of GRDDL Documents and Issues

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.60.0609270940500.25014@joplin.bio.ri.ccf.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 
> 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 

Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 13:49:06 UTC

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