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

Re: GRDDL spec ready for release?

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:44:23 -0500
Message-ID: <45C7F997.7000207@ibiblio.org>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
Cc: public-grddl-wg Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Without Chair's hat on, I personally like N3 rules and anything
informative we can do to help implementers is a good thing.

With Chair's hat on, I am concerned if the usage of N3 rules is also
maybe out of line with RIF,  although it might be and might be a
standard in the future, much as I have earlier expressed concerns over
RDFa syntax stabilization.

Any precedent's or rules of thumbs DanC, or anyone else? Informative is,
after all, only "informative" - but then I want implementers to not be
scared of our spec but ...they need to produce implementations that
actually work as GRDDL-aware agents.

Or is it time for a "Formal Semantics" for GRDDL doc :)

          -harry


Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>
>> 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
>


-- 
		-harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 03:44:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT