Re: Some spec comments (to .xsl or not to .xsl?) (#issue-whichlangs, #issue-conformance-labels)

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Should means should; it means do it unless you have some good reason not to. 
> If you
> have a good reason to not apply any transformations, then don't. If you have 
> a software
> module that never applies any transformations and you claim it's a conforming 
> GRDDL-aware agent,
> I don't think whether that claim is true or not has much impact; the market 
> will judge
> it harshly in any case.
>
> The conformance label is not so valuable to me that I would object to taking 
> it back out...
> ... so long as somebody else did the editing this time. 1/2 ;-)
>
> Is your preference to take out the conformance label? I guess the "1. Find 
> each transformation..." list
> would go with it. I think that list is responsive to a number of comments 
> that Dave Beckett has made,
> and I'm reluctant to take it out.
>
> Would you leave Jeremy's security stuff in? Or take it out?

At the very least, I think (somewhat similar to Murray's 
sentiments) we should elaborate a bit on the second item in the 
GRDDL-Aware Agents SHOULD clause:

2. Apply each transformation to obtain a GRDDL result.

To accomodate the uncertainty of policies with regards to this item.  A 
suggested rewording:

2. Apply each transformation (with the exception of those excluded by 
a local policy) to obtain a GRDDL result

I'd rather this is explicit in SHOULD clause than to leave it up to 
interpretation

I would also inclined (less so, than the previous suggestion) to reword 
the label definition to:

"A GRDDL-aware agent is a software module that computes GRDDL results of 
information resources where the results (and their computation) are 
allowed by a local policy."


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