W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (namespac document)

From: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:07:40 -0700
Message-ID: <463168FC.1020803@dajobe.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
CC: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Copied from WG list, should also have been on the comments list.
> Dave Beckett's comments preceded by >>
> WG responce preceded by >
> Harry Halpin wrote:
>> Sent on behalf of the WG, text by member Jeremy Carroll:
>> Hi Dave
>>>  Are the contents you get when resolving the URI
>>>  http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view part of the GRDDL recommendation?
>>> If so, I'd expect the contents to be static and could be hard-coded
>>> into applications.  If not static, what are the expected changes?
>>> (Given that above the only allowed changes are defined to not affect
>>> GRDDL processing).
>>> The GRDDL profile URI is a significant URI for the GRDDL
>>> specification, so this is why I want to check if there is
>>> anything special going on with it's use and any contents
>>> that it may contain.
>> To reply directly:
>> a) No, the content of  http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view are not part
>> of the GRDDL recommendation?
>> b) We will review and correct the contents of
>> http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view during the candidate recommendation
>> phase (which we hope will be from May 1st to June 1st), after which it
>> should be stable. We will update you when we have done this.
>> c) Applications can behave as if the file had an empty GRDDL result,
>> except when they are explicitly asked for the GRDDL result of this
>> resource. In the latter case, they should do a GET on the URI and apply
>> the usually GRDDL mechanisms.
>> This is the force of the statement in the editor's draft:
>> [[
>> The namespace document includes RDF data about the terms in the GRDDL
>> Vocuabulary, but these RDF data do not include any triples whose
>> predicate is grddl:profileTransformation.
>> ]]
>> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddlvocab
>> since that is the only type of triple that one would normally have to
>> look for.
>> Does this adequately address your concerns about the namespace document?
>> ===========
>> Jeremy

Yes it does address my concerns.  Thanks

Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 03:07:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:28 UTC