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

Re: POWDER + GRDDL = POWDER semantics?

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:52:45 +0000
Message-ID: <479FA02D.8020200@icra.org>
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "public-grddl-wg@w3.org" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

That's my understanding, yes. One would be a relatively complex/verbose 
form that was derived from the other, presumably by machine. That form 
would be processable in a non-POWDER-aware environment. The simpler 
format would only be processable if the client understood the 
peculiarities and assumptions of POWDER. They would, however, mean the 

As an aside, I plan to make the ICRA data available in both formats, 
with the semantic version available as an RDF dump complete with SPARQL 
engine. The word 'plan' is from the Slovakian meaning "have a hope to" 
in the context of "need to raise some funding to pay someone to do it 
because I'm a little out of my depth" - that sort of plan. But the end 
result should be a controlled-vocabulary description of a lot of Web 
sites. By June ;-)


Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
> Just to elaborate a little more on POWDER semantics, my hope is that the GRDDL results would provide the authoritative semantics of a POWDER document, i.e., that there would not be two separate and possibly conflicting specifications of the semantics of a POWDER document (one for POWDER Lite and another for POWDER Full).  Is that correct?
> 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 Tuesday, 29 January 2008 22:11:22 UTC

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