- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:26:53 -0400
- To: <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>
More questions on the draft of 2007/04/26 23:03:29: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec 5. Section 3 has a special case rule for RDF/XML documents: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_rdfxbase [[ If an information resource IR is represented by a conforming RDF/XML document[RDFX], then the RDF graph represented by that document is a GRDDL result of IR. ]] This rule treats RDF/XML serializations specially, whereas Section 6 says that result formats other than RDF/XML are permitted: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_txprop [[ The rule above covers the case of a transformation property that relates an XPath document node to an RDF graph via an RDF/XML document. Transformations may use other, unspecified, mechanisms. ]] Is the Section 3 rule also supposed to be similarly generalized, to permit non-RDF/XML serializations to represent GRDDL results (as a base case)? (I hope not, because I think that would be problematic.) 6. Again, regarding the special case rule for RDF/XML documents in Section 3: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_rdfxbase [[ If an information resource IR is represented by a conforming RDF/XML document[RDFX], then the RDF graph represented by that document is a GRDDL result of IR. ]] If the namespace rule http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_nstx is defined to look for a GRDDL result that includes a namespaceTransformation property, then I can see the purpose of this rule. But is there any other reason for this rule? It seems like it would arbitrarily prevent someone from doing a GRDDL transformation on their RDF/XML document that they explicity said they want to do. I don't know exactly *why* someone might want to do it -- perhaps to convert from one dialect of RDF to another, or to change old URIs to new URIs -- but I'm reluctante to forbid somethine unless there's a reason to do so. OTOH I am unclear from Brian McBride's comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Mar/0011. html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Mar/0023. html whether it is even *possible* to specify a GRDDL transformation from a valid RDF/XML document, so I'm not sure my question is relevant. 7. Section 3 defines the namespace rule http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_nstx to look for a namespaceTransformation property on the GRDDL *result* of the namespace document. That seems like a rather convoluted way to associate the namespace URI with GRDDL transformations. Is there a reason why we need this recursion? This is a very different approach than is used for the non-namespace case where a document directly specifies its own GRDDL transformations in the grddl:transformation attribute. For example, why doesn't the namespace rule, for example, look directly at the root of the namespace document for a *pair* of attributes such as: [[ grddl:namespace="http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/p3q-ns-example" grddl:namespaceTransformation="http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/grokP3Q.xs l" ]] (The above is intended to indicate that each absolut-ified token in grddl:namespaceTransformation is a GRDDL transformation for documents using the given grddl:namespace URI.) Is there a reason why an approach like this (which parallels the approach for tne non-namespace case) would be inadequate, infeasible or inferior to the recursive mechanism in the current draft? Thanks David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 07:28:54 UTC