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

Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (namespac document)

From: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:05:26 -0700
Message-ID: <46316876.1020900@dajobe.org>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
CC: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Harry Halpin wrote:
> Sent on behalf of the WG, text by member Jeremy Carroll:
> Hi Dave
>>  Are the contents you get when resolving the URI
>>  http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view part of the GRDDL recommendation?
>> If so, I'd expect the contents to be static and could be hard-coded
>> into applications.  If not static, what are the expected changes?
>> (Given that above the only allowed changes are defined to not affect
>> GRDDL processing).
>> The GRDDL profile URI is a significant URI for the GRDDL
>> specification, so this is why I want to check if there is
>> anything special going on with it's use and any contents
>> that it may contain.
> To reply directly:
> a) No, the content of  http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view are not part
> of the GRDDL recommendation?
> b) We will review and correct the contents of
> http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view during the candidate recommendation
> phase (which we hope will be from May 1st to June 1st), after which it
> should be stable. We will update you when we have done this.
> c) Applications can behave as if the file had an empty GRDDL result,
> except when they are explicitly asked for the GRDDL result of this
> resource. In the latter case, they should do a GET on the URI and apply
> the usually GRDDL mechanisms.
> This is the force of the statement in the editor's draft:
> [[
> The namespace document includes RDF data about the terms in the GRDDL
> Vocuabulary, but these RDF data do not include any triples whose
> predicate is grddl:profileTransformation.
> ]]
> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddlvocab
> since that is the only type of triple that one would normally have to
> look for.
> Does this adequately address your concerns about the namespace document?

Yes, that all seems clear and addresses my concerns.  Thank you

Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 03:05:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:11 UTC