RE: An alternative usecase to consider for the ambiguity proposals

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:50 GMT

It's bizarre how long it took for this email to arrive.  The mail
servers must have started to treat email on the ambiguity issue as
PRIORITY=SPAM.   :)

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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-grddl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chimezie Ogbuji
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 9:23 AM
> To: GRDDL Working Group
> Subject: An alternative usecase to consider for the ambiguity 
> proposals
> 
> 
> Just a point of illumination meant to contribute to an "informed"
> conversation and decision about the ambiguity issue.  This came up
> during dialog with David and John but was not re-iterated in 
> the mailing
> list at any point, so I'll repeat it here for the benefit of 
> the Working
> Group members.  The suggested corrections to address ambiguity are
> motivated by David's usecase in which pre-emptive XInclude elaboration
> (automatic expansion of XInclude) is *not* what the author 
> has in mind:
> the quoting XInclude scenario.  Consider an alternative usecase where
> pre-emptive XInclude elaboration is *exactly* what the author had in
> mind for a 'Faithful Rendition'.  Lets say the GRDDL source document
> was:
> 
> <?xml version='1.0'?> 
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>       xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
>       xmlns:grddl='http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#'">
>   <head profile="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view">
>     <xi:include href="otherTransform.xml"/>
>     <title>..</title>
>   </head>
>   <body>..</body>
> </html>
> 
> And otherTransform.xml was:
> 
> <?xml version='1.0'?> 
> <link 
>   xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" 
>   rel="transformation" 
>   href="someOtherTransform.xsl"/>
> 
> Notice, if the second document is included (which is the 
> author's intent
> here), before the original source is 'searched' for 
> transforms, then the
> additional transform is picked up (and applied).  However, if 
> the second
> document is *not* included, the additional transform is *not* picked
> up. 
> 
> My (mostly rhetorical) question is which of the GRDDL specifications
> (including the current editor's draft and the various proposals)?:
> 
> 1. Can support both usecases
> 2. Will be in compliance with the xmlFunctions-34 resolution
> 3. Can be subject to the eventual XML Processing Model 
> specification as
> a way (independent of GRDDL) for "an author, consumer, or 
> application to
> guide this process" [1]
> 
> By 'this process' the XML Processing Model WG Charter is 
> speaking of the
> process of determining "Which if any of the transformations 
> signalled by
> aspects of an XML document should be performed, and in what order"
> 
> [1]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/xml-processing-model-wg-charter.h
> tml#xml-scope
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> ===================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top 3 hospitals in
> America by U.S.News & World Report. Visit us online at
> http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of
> our services, staff and locations.
> 
> 
> Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
> only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
> and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
> you have received this communication in error,  please
> contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
> its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 