W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

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

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:54:20 +0000
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "public-grddl-wg@w3.org" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, "patrick.stickler@nokia.com" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "chris@bizer.de" <chris@bizer.de>, Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Message-ID: <184112FE564ADF4F8F9C3FA01AE50009DECDAEA7AC@G1W0486.americas.hpqcorp.net>

> From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@ibiblio.org]
> I think it's up to the POWDER Group to decide whether or not to use
> RDF/XML+GRDDL->RDF plus reification or vanilla XML+GRDDL->RDF plus
> reification.

Of course.  I'm just contributing my views.  :)

> [ . . . ]
> I would prefer not to revisit the test-cases (as we closed this issue
> quite a while back, and I can see how the feature that Jeremy is
> suggesting using could be useful, as analogous problems re entailment
> crop up in OWL inference).  [ . . . ]

There are two separable issues here:

1. Whether test #grddlonrdf conforms to the GRDDL spec as written.  AFAICT it does *not* conform to the GRDDL spec as written, so in my view the working group has a responsibility in an erratum to either fix it or delete it.

2. Whether the GRDDL spec should be changed, to make the result of an RDF document be *only* the RDF that is directly specified in that document.  This would represent a (slight) design change, and thus it is not a candidate for an erratum.  In my view, it would have to wait until GRDDL 2.0.  :(

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 19:55:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:12 UTC