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

Re: "GRDDL Agents" section, normative security text for review (# issue-conformance-labels)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:01:17 -0600
To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <1171749678.4165.76.camel@dirk>

On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 14:27 -0500, Murray Maloney wrote:
> Looks quite good. The protocol trace is a nice touch.

Yes, I had fun with that...

> I have a quibble with step 2....
> 
> [...] a GRDDL Agent should:
> 
> 1. Find each transformation associated with N, i.e.
> 	[...]
> 2 Apply each transformation to obtain a GRDDL result.
> 3 Merge those GRDDL results.
> 
> I agree that an agent should be aware of each transformation that is 
> associated with N.
> I also agree that results should be merged.
> 
> However, I think that a GRDDL-aware agent should have some discretion
> with respect to which transformation(s) are applied. Perhaps that is the
> reason that "should" was used instead of "must".  In a given situation,
> only one or a specific set of transformations may be applicable -- at the
> discretion of the client on whose behalf the agent is performing.

Yes, it should have some discretion. I meant for "local policy
an configuration" to convey that sense of discretion...

"Given a URI I of an information resource IR, and an XPath node N for a
representation of IR, subject to security considerations below and local
policy and configuration, a GRDDL Agent should:"

Is that perhaps clear enough on second look?

> Also -- I suppose that I should have thought to ask this question a long 
> time ago
> -- but what happens if the merged GRDDL result contains a grddl:transformation?
> Is that result final, or are we expected to recurse until we have exhausted 
> transformation
> links?

No, the spec doesn't say to recurse in that situation. (At least:
it isn't meant to, and I don't _think_ it says to.)

I suppose you could build an agent whose policy was to treat GRDDL
results as not just data to be passed on but true facts to be
acted upon. But that would go beyond the spec, at least as
currently written.

> Regards,
> 
> Murray
> 
> P.S. I noticed that my name is mentioned under acknowledgements in connection
> with a W3C meeting held in France in 2004. I did attend a meeting, but it 
> was in March 2006.

Oops; I got the 2004 and 2006 meetings blurred together in my head.
Fixed in Revision 1.222  2007/02/17 21:58:04
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#changes

> And thanks for the mention.

Welcome.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Saturday, 17 February 2007 22:01:30 GMT

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