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

[Fwd: GRDDL Going to Last Call]

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:13:56 -0500
Message-ID: <45CBE6F4.5040504@ibiblio.org>
To: www-archive@w3.org


Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426

attached mail follows:

First, congrats on getting XQuery to Rec!

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 facilitate the deployment of the Semantic Web.  It is obviously a much lighter-weight spec than XQuery.

 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 to the XML QUuery WG as a GRDDL can be considered a type of function from XML to RDF, and that GRDDL transformations can be implemented in XQuery, and  we'd appreciate if this message was forwarded to either your listserv or to interested parties in your list if you think needed. In fact, if someone wants to make a XQuery GRDDL transformation (our current test suite using XSLT), I would be happy to add it to our test suite. 

  In particular, I would personally be interested if you believe our definition of XML documents in terms XPath notes in [2] is correct. We are unaware if XQuery takes a particular stand on issues like resolving XIncludes. We include the following informative warning in [2]:

"When an information resource is represented by an XML document, the corresponding XPath data model is somewhat under-determined, depending on, for example, whether an agent elaborates inclusions, parameter entities, fixed and default attributes, or checks digital signatures. Put another way, if an author takes responsibility for the information in an XML document, for what information exactly is the author taking responsibility? And how can the author ensure that a GRDDL transformation is able to meet GRDDL's Faithful Rendition assurance?

This specification is purposely silent on the question of which XML processors are employed by or for GRDDL-aware agents. Whether or not processing of XInclude, XML Validity, XML Schema Validity, XML Signatures or XML Decryption take place is implementation-defined. There is no universal expectation that an XSLT processor will call on such processing before executing a GRDDL transformation. Therefore, it is suggested that GRDDL transformations be written so that they perform all expected pre-processing, including processing of related DTDs, Schemas and namespaces. Such measure can be avoided for documents which do not require such pre-processing to yield an infoset that is faithful. That is, for documents which do not reference XInclude, DTDs, XML Schemas and so on."
 [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

        thank you,


Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Friday, 9 February 2007 03:14:03 UTC

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