RE: consumer-producer/pixel-perfection/*the* GRDDL result

> From: public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> [ . . . ]
> For example, if the GRDDL 
> Result is in fact an OWL DL graph, maybe they want the consumer to 
> perform complete OWL DL reasoning, as it was designed for.
> 
> We could decide to redesign GRDDL to allow the publisher to 
> put such a constraint on the consumer.
> 
> That would be a mistake.

Of course that would be a mistake.  And it is misleading to suggest that
that has anything to do with issue-dbooth-3.  To quote from Wednesday's
slide presentation:
http://dbooth.org/2007/grddl/ambiguity.ppt
[[
What this issue is NOT about
 . . .
NOT about requiring the GRDDL-aware agent to actually produce the
transformation author's intended results
]]

I will again try to make this clear: this issue is *only* about giving
consumer the *ability* -- if desired -- to answer the question:
http://dbooth.org/2007/grddl/ambiguity.ppt
[[
Given an XML document, what RDF did the GRDDL transformation author
intend to denote? 
]]

This issue is *not* about forcing either the producer or the consumer to
do *anything*.  It is about giving the producer the *ability* to
unambiguously *indicate*  what RDF results are intended, so that the
consumer has the ability to determine them *if desired*.

> [ . . . ]
> The axis of variability of concern in these (what preprocessing is 
> performed when reading an XML document) has been explored in depth by 
> other groups, and the current situation works, despite this 
> variability.

Well, you may think the current situation is acceptable, but there
clearly seem to be many others who think there is a problem, as
evidenced by:
1. The XProc WG's task to define a default XML processing model;
2. The TAG's open issue xmlFunctions-34; and
3. Our own test cases, which are explicitly designed to warn users about
this ambiguity.  (Note that those test cases do not adequately
illustrate the full extent of the problem though, because they only
illustrate the "subsetting" aspect -- not the "wrong results" aspect.
The example at the end of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/007
8.html
illustrates he "wrong results" aspect of the ambiguity problem.)


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 13:46:45 UTC