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

Re: Spec section 9 (GRDDL Vocabulary)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:51:29 -0600
Message-Id: <fa9298288908222f1047063ef73c54c7@w3.org>
Cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>

On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:38 AM, McBride, Brian wrote:

>>> Section 9 of the spec has "@@this section needs work".
>>
>> Indeed. I haven't finished thinking thru which terms that I'm
>> using in the mechanical rules should be in the GRDDL
>> vocabulary and which should go somewhere else...

OK, I just checked in that chunk
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddlvocab

Revision 1.224  2007/02/20 01:42:36  connolly
- fleshed out GRDDL vocabulary/schema section
-- added InformationResource, RootNode, RDFGraph
-- moved "every transformation has a transformationProperty"
    from a rule to OWL in the GRDDL schema

- rationalized namespaces in mechanical rules

- refined introduction of mechanical rules

- lightened assertion background color in preparation for using more of 
it



I think the contents of the GRDDL vocabulary document should be captured
in a test case; especially the fact that there are no 
namespaceTransformation
nor profileTransformation triples in it.



>>  nor how to
>> get that namespace document to serve well as both a "getting started"
>> (i.e. a glorified link to the primer) and a reference.

I haven't looked at http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view from that 
angle...

> It's a great deal of work being editor!

Well, perhaps I'm not doing a sufficiently good job at sharing the load.
In particular, making sure http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view is
a good "getting started" document and jumping off point is something
anybody in the WG should be able to help with.

>>> How close to having last call candidate spec are we?
>>
>> Well, the spec is always a candidate, I suppose... if things
>> go well, I'll have disposed of all @@s one way or another
>> before Henry sends out this week's agenda.
>
> I'm not griping;

oops; did I get defensive?

>  just was trying to get a clear picture of where folks
> think we are.  On this schedule I won't have time to review it before
> the telecon this week.

Understandable.

>>> the mechanical rules appendix is missing.
>>
>> Missing? Well, it could use a lot of work, or maybe it could
>> be dropped altogether. But it's there.
>> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_rules
>
> You are right - I only looked for it in place - didn't spot the link.
>
> <skulks a bit>I'm not very familiar with N3 rules and was looking for
> something to explain to me how to interpret the ones in the spec.  I
> don't think we can assume everyone knows how to read them.  That 
> doesn't
> seem to be the sort of thing in the mechanical rules document though.

OK, I wrote that bit too...

http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_rules
1.7  2007/02/20 01:38:07

I could still imagine yanking all that stuff out of the spec, but
I did manage to go over it with Michael Sperberg-McQueen
and Sandro Hawke and they did get it. That took almost an
hour by phone, but that was before the prose I just wrote
was available.

Does the prose come close to explaining adequately?

>>
>> Another major @@ is under issue-http-header-links
>> @@TODO: integrate the proposal in the spec
>>
That one is still outstanding. Patches welcome!



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:51:48 GMT

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