W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > April 2007

draft message to Tony Hammond

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:39:48 +0100
Message-ID: <462CD344.1030301@hpl.hp.com>
To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>


We've dropped the ball:
How about,


Hi again,

sorry that we've taken so long to reply.
As you may be aware our editor has had other things on his plate.

Before discussing your other points, we should update you concerning WG 
discussion of your comments at the 28th March WG telecon.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Mar/att-0193/28-grddl-wg-minutes.html#item03

We felt that the issues raised concerning being clear about the 
differences between RDF, XML, and RDF/XML were more pertinent to the 
GRDDL primer, than to the GRDDL Specification.

We are intending to close your comment against the spec, but keep the 
issue open against the primer (which is further behind in its 
development, and is currently planned to end as a WG Note).

In particular, we are updating this picture in the primer
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-grddl-primer-20061002/hCalendar.png
to include an explicit RDF/XML stage.

Concerning your comments that were not addressed in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007JanMar/0076

 > 5. "Content authors can nominate the transformations for producing RDF
 > from their content"
 >
 > Ditto.
 >

as for comment 4.

 > 6. "the transformation will provide a faithful rendition in RDF"
 >
 > Now here I really do think this means some serialization of RDF (well
 > OK, it's likely to be RDF/XML)

No we mean in terms of an RDF graph. The spec intends to be largely 
neutral concerning how the graph is represented; while normatively 
specifying only RDF/XML as a possible serialization.

 >
 > 7. "that the transformation will provide a faithful RDF rendition"
 >
 > Ditto.
 >

Ditto.

 >
 > Section 2:
 >
 > 1. "which are expected to transform the source document into RDF"
 >
 > RDF/XML?
 >
 > etc., etc.

etc. etc. :)

In particular, please note the test described at
http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-tests/#atomttl1

which shows that Turtle can be used to represent the RDF.
This is informative since the only normatively required serialization is 
RDF/XML.


 >
 > Sorry to be a pedant. But to echo katemonkey here:
 >
 > 	"Web standards help designers and developers create the pedantic
 > web."
 > 	http://thetenwordreview.com/reviews/programming/web+standards
 >
 > :~)
 >
 > Cheers,

Overall, we wonder if we need to agree to differ?

The WG prefer the specification to be fairly abstract, with one style of 
implementation using RDF/XML, which we expect to be the predominant, but 
not the only, style. You appear to have a preference for being clear 
about precisely which document formats occur at each step, which in 
practice would restrict us to RDF/XML. This is not our intent.


====

Jeremy





-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 15:40:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:49 GMT