Re: Review of GRDDL Documents and Issues

At 09:49 AM 9/27/2006 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

>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..

My point is that a source document is just a source document until it 
recognized
by a GRDDL-aware processor. Note that not all inputs to GRDDL-aware
processors will be recognized as being candidates for GRDDL processing.
Also note that even when a document is recognized as being a candidate,
the application may or may not choose to invoke any transformations, at the
discretion of the application logic and/or conditioned by user intervention.

Just because we have a hammer doesn't mean that everything is a nail.


>>  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?

Yes. Quite specific. Although I remain a bit confused about how to connect
documents to GRDDL through the use of namespace and profile documents.

Talk to you all soon.

Murray

P.S. I thought I would get more reaction to my edited version of the Intro.



>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