W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2007

Re: GRDDL Going to Last Call

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:43:16 -0500
Message-ID: <45C7A4F4.7000206@adida.net>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
CC: tbaker@tbaker.de, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, www-archive@w3.org


The latest RDFa documents are all linked from:


which are a notable update since the last WD (I think I've sent the URLs
out a few times.)

That said, when this comes out in WD form, it will be updated at the URL
you have ([7] in your references).

I don't know about linking the RDFa bookmarklets in a WD or REC-track
document... probably not stable enough for that.

Regarding the ability of GRDDL to output any serialization of RDF: I
know I haven't had very good attendance on the call, but I think the
latest solution---to try every transform and figure out which one the
agent cares about---is lacking. Unless these transforms can be typed in
some way, they're not likely to be useful to an RDFa agent, especially
since many RDFa agents will use client-side Javascript and thus not be
able to "try every transform and see which one fits."

I believe I've said this on GRDDL calls before, but if you need me to
make this comment more officially, I can.


Harry Halpin wrote:
> I'm Harry Halpin, the Chair of the GRDDL WG [1] which links XML and
> XHTML(including "microformats") to the Semantic Web in order to
> faciliate the deployment of the Semantic Web. w
> In order to prevent a "surprise" Last Call, I'd like for your WG to know
> that we are going to go, barring any final comments or problems, to
> request move to Last Call on or shortly after Feb 15th for the following
> three documents:
> 1) GRDDL Specification [2]
> 2) GRDDL Primer [3]
> 3) GRDDL Use Cases [4]
> We believe this technology is related (of course!) to the SWD WG, and
> we'd appreciate if this message was forwarded to either your listserv or
> to interested parties in your list.
> Primarily, we are interested in interoperating with RDFa, and have
> included a use-case involving RDFa  [2] and in our Primer [3]. While
> currently in our example in the Primer we will just RDFa as an "input"
> format to extract RDF/XML from, in our Use-Case document we have a use
> case that involves using a RDFa-aware browser and converting from
> microformats to RDFa, much like Ben Adida's "hGRDDL" work [5]. We plan
> to link to that work in our primer, should we use this link [6]?
> Also, is this the most stable RDFa spec? [7] Is that URI going to
> change? Also, since we are aiming for interoperability with SWD
> specifications, if appropriate, do link to GRDDL specs.
> Note that although people seem to forget this, GRDDL takes in an XML
> document and produces an abstract RDF graph, which can be serialized as
> RDFa, so GRDDL is *not* limited to producing RDF/XML.
> The test-suite uses RDF/XML as its output tests, but it does not match
> on the bytes, but on the graph.
> [1 ]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc29/primer.html
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm
> [5]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm#scheduling_use_case
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/rdfa-bookmarklet/
> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa-primer/
>        thank you,
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 21:41:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:05 UTC