W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > March 2006

RE: 8 points for GRDDL (output other than RDF/XML?)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:47:18 -0600
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, newsml-2@yahoogroups.com
Message-Id: <1141919239.26363.1509.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:27 +0100, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Hi Misha,
> 
> Le jeudi 09 mars 2006 à 15:00 +0000, Misha Wolf a écrit :
> > [re GRDDL]
> > 6. do not limit rdf/xml as output
> 
> I don't think this has been discussed anywhere yet;

It was discussed at the recent SemWeb IG ftf.

http://esw.w3.org/topic/SwigAtTp2006

specifically, around...
  http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-03-02.html#T13-48-30

I took an action to add it as an issue.

OK, that's done:
  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 1.79 2006/03/09 15:45:31

[[
Implementation experience to date suggests investigating the following
issues:

      * how the transformation algorithm gets the base URI; specify how
        that works as an XSLT param
      * how a GRDDL client interacts with a document whose root element
        is an XSLT literal result element
      * how a GRDDL client interacts with an RDF document that has a
        root element other than rdf:RDF
      * whether use of ECMAscript should be endorsed more
      * whether GRDDL transformations may produce RDF in a format other
        than RDF/XML. discussed in the March 2006 SemWeb IG meeting; see
        irc notes
      * what happens if data-view:transformation is given on an rdf:RDF
        root element (9 Mar 2006 from McBride)
      * whether RDF/XML statements labelled as application/xml
        constitute a "document whose meaning includes the RDF
        statement ..." (9 Mar 2006 from McBride)
]]

>  is your question
> about allowing non RDF output or output in RDF but not in the XML
> serialization?
> 
> It would be fairly difficult to integrate a non RDF output, if only
> because GRDDL relies on the fact that RDF is 
> * easy to merge
> * expressive enough to cover the semantics of any kind of dialect
> 
> With regard to RDF non-XML serializations, I don't think any use case
> has been expressed to support such an option; do you have one to
> suggest?

That's a good question; I don't recall any specific answers from
the discussion in France.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2006 15:47:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:01 GMT