RE: [GRDDL Primer] Some remarks

Dan,

Thanks for your answers - better late than never ;)

regarding 1) Source: Textual/non-XML vs. XML vs. Other:

	I agree: it is out of scope for now, but it could lead to a
Liaison between
	GRDDL and MMSEM-XG on that topic in future

regarding 2) Exploiting existing Web Sources:

	My idea was simply to define a "decoration" for well known
HTML-sources (structures)
	as e.g. the Google result page format and offer a
GRDDL-transformation for creating RDF triples. 
	Might be to fancy, indeed :)

regarding 3)

	Sounds good to me. Otherwise it is hard convincing people to go
for RDF.


Again, thanks for your answers - I'll continue to follow your work, try
to contribute by
simply using RDFa/GRDDL in my realm and continue to comment on the GRDDL
WG drafts ...

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:03 AM
>To: Hausenblas, Michael; "Michael <michael.hausenblas"@joanneum.at
>Cc: public-grddl-comments@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [GRDDL Primer] Some remarks
>
>Thanks for the comments of 10 Oct...
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2006O
ctDec/0005.html
>
>Sorry for the delay in responding.
>
>> 1) Source: Textual/non-XML vs. XML vs. Other
>> I could even imagine a broader application, using GRDDL style to e.g.
>> extract EXIF [EXIF-RDF] from images
>
>It's not at all clear to me how that would work.
>
>It seems to be beyond the scope of our charter...
>
>"The Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages 
>(GRDDL) specification
>aims to supplement the RDF/XML concrete syntax with a flexible 
>mechanism for using
>other XML syntaxes with the Resource Description Framework."
> -- http://www.w3.org/2006/07/grddl-charter.html#scope
>
>If you're interested to change the charter, we could discuss that,
>but to me it doesn't seem cost-effective, at this point. Perhaps the
>idea is something to pursue after a first version of GRDDL is
>finished? Or perhaps in parallel, but outside the GRDDL WG?
>
>> 2) Exploiting existing Web Sources
>> When playing around with GRDDL I often ask myself why not 
>using existing
>> sources/formats (Google, eBay, etc.) as
>> a starting point. IMHO this might help in enabling GRDDL to take off
>> faster; this is also related with (Web 2.0 stuff)
>> as Tagging - we have a UC in our MMSEM XG group as well that tackles
>> this issue.
>
>We certainly hope that GRDDL will be applicable to a wide variety
>of formats, and we intend to supply details about how to do that
>in at least a few more cases.
>
>It's not clear to me what you mean by using Google, eBay, etc.
>Do you mean some of their formats? Could you give a pointer to
>what you have in mind?
>
>> 3) Reasoning
>> Looking at the example in the Primer where SPARQL is used to 
>demonstrate
>> the usage of the extracted RDF there
>> should also be some statement about reasoning (w.r.t. a schema/an
>> ontology) in it. Or put in other words, 
>> playing the advocatus diaboli: What is RDF worth without it? :)
>
>Indeed, I hope we'll give some detailed examples about
>"smushing" (i.e. equality reasoning using OWL), consistency
>checking, perhaps even rules in future documents.
>
>Prior to this Working Group, I did some OWL consistency
>checking with GRDDL'd data, at least as a hypothetical example.
>See http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/mash/slides#(45)
>
>
>-- 
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2006 14:46:00 UTC