W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2006

RE: GRDDL (split off from: Structured vs. Unstructured)

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:23:28 -0500
To: "'HCLS'" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001701c6319c$226918d0$66741780@BIOXIAO>

> But if that's the sole advantage of GRDDL, I don't see it as 
> a strong argument in favor of its use. That's why I've always 
> interpreted GRDDL as something more, namely an early 
> "web-of-trust" standard, where its use entailed some implicit 
> contract with the rest of the web regarding semantic intent.

I think this results from, what I called the split personality of URI.  I am
working on a proteomics resource portal site so I can relate to the
motivation of GRDDL. 

For example, if someone has worked out out a super-blast program and want to
publish it on the web.  We can assign the resource a unique URI, let's say
it is http://hcls.org/superblast. Now the question is: when dereference this
URI, what do you expect the server to return?  For a human user, you
obviously want to return a HTML so the user can fill the form and run the
application.  But what if it is a software agent?  In this case, you
probably want to return an RDF, from which an agent can figure out what to
do next.  Of course, HTTP content negotiation can help here but it demands a
bit more advanced server-side skills.  With GRDDL, on the other hand, you
just publish two document, one HTML on "http://hcls.org/superblast" and
another XSLT on an arbitrary URI. It offers a clean solution to remedy URI's
split personality without asking too much from the author (well, xslt isn't
that simple though:-)).

I understand your intension on the "web-of-trust", and the TAG's draft
finding on "Authoritative Metadata"[1] might help you.  


[1]. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 19:53:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:25 UTC