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

RE: G(RDDL)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:25:57 -0600
To: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, newsml-2@yahoogroups.com
Message-Id: <1141925157.26363.1527.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:16 +0000, Misha Wolf wrote:
> On 9 March, Dan wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 15:22 +0000, Misha Wolf wrote:
> > > In seeking to formulate a proposal to the NewsML 2 Architecture 
> > > WP for how we should make use of RDDL and GRDDL, I am struck by 
> > > the different approaches taken by these two specs to linking to 
> > > resources.  Presumably, there is no reason why not to use the 
> > > RDDL approach to link to GRDDL transforms (instead of the 
> > > approach proposed in the GRDDL spec).
> > 
> > The approaches overlap; I've written RDDL documents that
> > are also GRDDL documents. The GRDDL profile itself used
> > to use RDDL; I found it hard to maintain, so I switched
> > to Embedded RDF; perhaps I should go back in CVS-time,
> > grab that RDDL example, and make an example of it...
> > perhaps in the GRDDL test suite, perhaps elsewhere.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, I'm interested to know... what differences
> > looked important to you?
> 
> I think that this is correct:
> 
> -  The RDDL architecture places the RDDL document at the namespace 
>    location.  This document specifies any number of links to typed 
>    resources.
> 
> -  The GRDDL architecture provides a few hardwired locations for the 
>    transforms.  One of these locations is a specialised attribute in 
>    the namespace document.
> 
> These strike me as very different approaches.  The former is open-
> ended, the latter is not.

Actually, the latter subsumes the former, so it is at least
as open-ended, if not more.

The few "hardwired" locations specified by GRDDL include the
case of a RDDL-style namespace document. And as to "any number
of links to typed resources", that's analagous to a bunch
of RDF statements, which you can express in the GRDDL
architecture, either directly as RDF/XML or using some
other syntax via a transformation.

I wonder if your concern is mostly about open-endedness of
architectures or if there's something more specific.


-- 
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 17:26:06 GMT

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