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 17:35:16 -0500
Message-ID: <45C7B124.2000909@adida.net>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
CC: tbaker@tbaker.de, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, www-archive@w3.org

Harry Halpin wrote:
> No, you do not need a complete solution but you need a solid proposal,
> or you  need to find someone else to help you with the proposal. Again,
> I *like* the general idea I'm just rather busy myself right now and
> haven't thought it through.
> If you can get (or others in SWD) can get a solid proposal through by
> before our schedule says we should go to CR, I will look at it seriously
> and make sure DanC adds it to the issue list. Perhaps you could ask Fabien.
> I do not think that this is too much to ask, and if you are overburdened
> someone else from SWD WG could take this on. Again, we have done
> everything requested in order to remain compatible with RDFa, but people
> interested in RDFa also have to help out.

Your description makes it sound like I simply waved my hand and said
"please do this." I tried to have this discussion during two GRDDL
telecons. I wrote up the need for this in detail in September [1]. I
wrote an hGRDDL transform in Javascript and a wiki page describing how
things would work ideally, in December [2].

One specific option I brought up was the idea of subclassing
grddl:transformation. Someone else brought up the idea of using the
@TYPE attribute on the LINK element. I'm not sure what the best approach
is, but I do know that the discussion quickly turned to "let's just have
the client try everything and graph merge."

The GRDDL WG has focused so far on publishing something quickly for the
well understood use cases. I don't fault you one bit for doing this:
GRDDL needs to be published ASAP as it's quite useful and it's been
sitting around as a Note for too long.

However, we shouldn't act like everything was done to coordinate with
RDFa: I've been raising this issue for a while and the reaction from the
WG has been lukewarm at best. I understand that different WGs have
different priorities, so it's fine, that's the way life goes. I'm simply
giving you my feedback regarding the GRDDL/RDFa coordination. I don't
think the current spec will be enough for RDFa's needs. We'll do our
best to fit within the current GRDDL spec, but it would be a heck of a
lot easier if the transformations were typed.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0073
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/hGRDDL_Example
Received on Monday, 5 February 2007 22:33:30 UTC

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