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

RE: POWDER + GRDDL = POWDER semantics?

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:38:52 +0000
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "public-grddl-wg@w3.org" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <184112FE564ADF4F8F9C3FA01AE50009DED0DE4071@G1W0486.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Sounds great.


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: Phil Archer [mailto:parcher@icra.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:53 PM
> To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> Cc: Jeremy Carroll; public-grddl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: POWDER + GRDDL = POWDER semantics?
>
> 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
> same.
>
> 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 ;-)
>
> Phil.
>
> 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 Wednesday, 30 January 2008 13:39:56 UTC

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