W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2005

Re: GRDDL in non-HTML XML - how, exactly?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:53:56 -0600
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: RDF in XHTML task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1111776836.32006.195.camel@localhost>

On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 16:13 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2005, 6:01:41 AM, Dan wrote:
> 
> DC> On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 20:33 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
> DC> [...]
> >> On Wednesday, March 23, 2005, 8:11:33 PM, Dan wrote:
> >> DC>    xmlns:data-view="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#"
> >> DC>   
> >> DC>
> >> data-view:transformation="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/embeddedRDF.xsl"
> >> 
> >> Ok so transformation, not interpreter.
> 
> DC> yes... (we changed names in 1.53 of 2004/12/07 23:19:58).
> 
> I request that, since the last actual public draft (ie, on the TR page)
> is dated 13 Apr 2004 that you publish the current draft on the TR page
> at your earliest convenience and give consideration to a regular three
> month updating of the TR page with this work in future.

Yes, I should let the SemWeb CG know that there's some updates
that should be published now... or as soon as I can finish
them and sync with Dom. If you don't see an updated /TR/ in
two weeks, please ping me.

As to ongoing regular publication, that's trickier. Priority of
this work ebbs and flows. It would be different if it were squarely
in the middle of the scope of a WG... it's related to some TAG issues,
but it's not owned by the TAG. It's related to the SemWeb BPD WG,
but that WG hasn't decided to publish it as a WD.


> DC> I added several diagrams in 1.62.
> DC>  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec
> 
> DC> And in the process I thought of some better ways to explain
> DC> things, but I haven't updated the text yet.
> 
> DC> Meanwhile, I wonder if the diagrams help?
> 
> They do. Another request, please use the HTML object element to give a
> choice between SVG and PNG directly.

I'd like to, but I tried that and the tools I use to produce/manage
the document didn't cooperate. Mozilla firefox on linux and Mac,
in particular. They showed neither the SVG version nor the PNG
version; just a small square box.

Are there SVG test materials that track the state of deployment
of this idiom, and/or show exactly how to do it? Taking a quick
look at the (SVG) 1.1 Test Suite
  http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/
I don't see one.

[...]

> 
> >> DC> As Dom explained, an XSLT stylesheet is a representation of
> >> DC> an algorithm.
> >> 
> >> An, yes - its not a list, or at least, only a very short one.
> 
> DC> I think I see how you were mislead... the attribute takes
> DC> a list of URI refs; each one refers to an algorithm, which
> DC> should be represented in XSLT. Gotta work on that part
> DC> of the spec.
> 
> Aha. Ok. But you are glad that IRI didn't make space a legal unescaped
> character, then :)

Quite.


> What is the expected processing if I provide, say, three URIs each of
> which points to an XSLT? Do you execute the first one that resolves
> correctly? The first one in a supported language? All of them?

All of them.

> What is the motivation for a list, here?

A document might belong to several dialects simultaneously.

See the figure example after...

"Note that an XHTML document may conform to a number of dialects
simultaneously and link to more than one decoding algorithm:"

> >>> Other representations may be used by prior agreement of all
> >>> concerned parties.
> 
> Who are 'all concerned parties' in a Web context? Everyone who has
> access rights to dereference the resource?

Hmm... that's poor phrasing... it should probably say something
like "we expect most consumers to grok XSLT for the forseeable
future, but other formats might become popular over time. Feel free
to use other formats if you expect your audience
will grok them".

[...]
> DC> It could be as simple as changing
> DC>     <rdf:Description>
> DC> to
> DC>     <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
> 
> DC> so that it would be saying "this document is related
> DC> by the CoordinateReferenceSystem property to something whose
> DC> crs:Identifier is...".
> 
> OK, that's easy to fix. So, a specified but blank value is different to
> an unspecified value?

Yes... the blank URI reference "" means "this document" but
an unspecified value just means "something", ala "there exists
something..."

> If I say rdf:about="foo" does it make it about just the element with ID
> foo?

Pretty close... "#foo", more likely... assuming we're willing
to sweep under the rug the difference between referring
to an element and referring to the shape described by that element.


> >>  Its supposed to say 'here is a
> >> coordinate system' and 'here is a projection' and 'this svg file
> >> represents a map in that coordinate system with that projection'. It
> >> seems we are missing the RDFese, or the GRDDLese, to make the third
> >> statement.
> 
> DC> Right. RDFese.
> 
> OK, good. Sounds easy for me to fix so far. Then these cases can be
> added to your test case collection.

Cool.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 25 March 2005 18:53:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:18 UTC