Re: Multiple GRDDL results in a single transform??? GRDDL and Named Graphs

Phil Archer wrote:

> I tried to think of a strong reason or use case for using RDF/XML as the 
> serialisation for a DR-O and couldn't do so. That doesn't mean there 
> aren't any, just that I can't think of one.

My reason is (c) in my previous message:

c) it should be fairly easy to add additional metadata in an open ended
fashion - this metadata can be: about the powder document and its
assertions etc. or about the resources described in that document


I think this is a reasonable objective, which is most easily met by 
re-using RDF/XML.

I think the worth of this objective is disputable, and can see that it 
is arguable that it is clearer to have a single formal meaning via 
GRDDL, rather than two related formal meanings (one via RDF/XML and one 
via GRDDL).

OTOH the GRDDL formal meaning of a POWDER document is likely to be 
esoteric, in the sense that you need to run XSLT and then understand 
some fairly complex OWL; whereas the direct formal meaning in RDF/XML of 
my proposed format or a variant, will be more easily intelligible to 
people with some knowledge of RDF. However, it won't say everything.

Personally I would see this is a legitimate design choice for the POWDER 
WG, and would be surprised if anyone would strongly object either way.

A possible compromise would be:

POWDER syntax is defined as the typed-node construct from RDF/XML, with 
one or two possible alternatives for that typed-node (e.g. wdr:DR 
wdr:Package) - but the content is not served as RDF/XML, but the GRDDL 
result includes the file as is, as well as the more complex format.

This would then avoid the potential confusion of this being mistaken for 
RDF/XML, while retaining the advantages of actually being RDF/XML (but 
when I can seriously write such a self-contradictory sentence, perhaps I 
am being too clever)

Jeremy