- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:22:04 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-grddl-wg Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
> Thanks so much for all the hard work on the Spec! I'd like at least one > more reviewer besides Ron to give a good read before we release it as a > Last Call. I'll volunteer to help review the spec. I'll try to focus on the informative mechanical rules, as I have a concern that there isn't much precedent in using rules to express the processing mechanics of a specification as well as the informal dependencies on the vocabularies used in the rules (the log:* properties in particular as well as rdfsyn:*). The appendix to the mechanical rules has @@explain TODO's regarding the vocabularies which are not 'formal', and I think these need to be very explicit about what the semantics of these terms are. The fact that the rules rely on generating function symbols makes the underlying KR quite expressive and perhaps not aligned with the target KR of the 'sanctioned' semantic web rule language (RIF) - which is still a work in progress. log:uri and log:includes in particular are quite cryptic in their formal semantics - at least from what I know of what those terms are meant to mean. Though the rules are informative, they have the nice advantage that they are 'complete' in the sense that proofs can be generated to determine GRDDL compliance. The bar for the average GRDDL implementor becomes significantly higher if they intend to interpret the rules in any formal way, and I think at the very least we should be sure that the specificatin is as clear as it can be (given the fact that we still don't have a 'sanctioned' SW rule language) about such an interpretation. 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 Friday, 2 February 2007 18:22:23 UTC