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


From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:05:17 +0000
Message-ID: <479A32ED.3050409@hpl.hp.com>
To: david.booth@hp.com, "public-grddl-wg@w3.org" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
CC: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>


I suspect it would be helpful to the POWDER WG if we could agree what we 
agree on, and what we disagree on. Here is a straw man:

We agree:
- the POWDER format should be heavily constrained, to allow easy 
processing of operational semantics by an XML app
- the POWDER format should not be unconstrained RDF/XML
- the full formal meaning of a POWDER document should most easily be 
accessed by use of GRDDL
- to permit adding arbitrary metadata, some part of a POWDER document 
should be defined in terms of
(most probably one of nodeElement or nodeElementList)
- the meaning of any RDF/XML included in the POWDER document should be 
consistent with the GRDDL result.

We disagree:
- whether a powder document as a whole should match the nodeElement 
construction of RDF/XML)
- whether the powder document should be served as RDF/XML or as XML.

We have not yet finish understanding the differences in opinion 
concerning entailment relationships.

In my view the agreements above are much more extensive and important 
than the disagreements.

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 19:05:57 UTC

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