RE: Associating a GRDDL transform with an XML schema... and it's not XSLT

Hi Phil,

The normative part is the XML Schema section under
http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#ns-bind . The section of the primer you
refer to (ref [3] in your mail) applies to XML instance documents (in
the example given, an XML instance of an MS Excel spreadsheet), and not
schemas.

Since the GRDDL transform is from POWER-Base to POWDER, then any
GRDDL-processing instruction would reside in wdrb.xsd [1], the schema
for POWDER-Base.
This would be via inclusion of 

            xmlns:data-view="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#"
 
data-view:transformation="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/embeddedRDF.xsl"

...attributes within the xs:schema element.

The RDF within xs:appinfo is non-normative, but I'm happy to include it
that way as it's (a) easily done and (b) may assist GRDDL processors by
being in the same format as suggested in the spec.

So unless there are any objections I can add the attributes above, and
the annotation RDF to the POWDER-Base schema.

Cheers
Kevin











[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder/wdrb.xsd 

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Archer [mailto:parcher@fosi.org] 
Sent: 15 October 2008 12:17
To: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
Cc: Smith, Kevin, (R&D) VF-Group
Subject: Associating a GRDDL transform with an XML schema... and it's
not XSLT

Hi,

As some of you on this list area aware, POWDER associates a GRDDL
transform with its namespace, the result of which produces POWDER-S. 
(POWDER is an XML dialect, POWDER-S is RDF/OWL with a twist).

The transform is defined in our Formal Semantics document [1], currently
undergoing minor edits to take account of LC comments received. What I'm
working on right now is getting the right references in the right places
to make the GRDDL association explicit... and, sorry, I'm confused and
would greatly appreciate some help.

We have a (rather complicated) schema at [2]. We have a GRDDL transform
defined as human-readable text at [1].

Do we just add a couple of lines like this to the root element of the
schema?

xmlns:data-view="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#"
data-view:transformation="http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-formal/"

I ask because the Primer suggests this is enough [3] but the main
documentation [4] suggests we need to include a chunk of RDF as an
xsd:annotation.

And given that the normative transform is defined in a human readable
document, not an XSLT, is this going to break something? Actually, we do
have an XSLT but a) it's not normative and b) it handles some, but not
all of the transform (see the thread starting at [5] if you care why).

Any and all comments gratefully received.

Thanks

Phil.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-powder-formal-20080815/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder/wdr.xsd
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl-primer/#spreadsheets-section
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#ns-bind
[5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Sep/0034.html

--
Phil Archer
w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/

Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 14:56:38 UTC