Re: Not GRDDL, but GRDDL-like (was Re: GRDDL and OWL/XML)

Harry Halpin wrote:
> 
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>
>> On 13 May 2008, at 15:56, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>> I believe that everyone else agrees that the GRDDL spec does *not* 
>> require an executable, downloadable specification of the 
>> transformation at the namespace document.
> That's a bit strong. I think agreement of most of the remaining active 
> members (at least myself, Chime, David Booth, not sure about DanC and 
> Jeremy) of the GRDDL WG is that executable code, in particular XSLT, 
> would be useful, and there is no obvious use value in a non-executable 
> version.

You can add my name to that list. I concur.

{snip]

BP>> From a marketing perspective, it feels like a bait and switch. I feel
BP>> like I did due diligence and now am sandbagged. Proper specs *cannot*
BP>> require people to interview members of the community to determine what
BP>> conforming behavior is. That defeats the point!

HH> No-one else in the community has ever brought up the point that the
HH> GRDDL transformation could be non-executable.  Thus, I think your
HH> reading of the specification is unique. I am glad you have brought this
HH> up, as no-one has thought this through before, and it is an intelligent
HH> if unusual point.

I also agree wholeheartedly with this point too.

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 13:01:28 UTC