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

RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-output-formats)

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:10:20 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C20294B059@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>

> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 03:28 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> wrote:
> > . . .
> > I.e., Would non-RDF/XML formats be *in addition to* 
> > RDF/XML, which MUST/SHOULD be provided?
> Not in that case; in the atomttl1 test case, the
> transformation provides only turtle, not RDF/XML.
> That test comes from a real-world scenario where I tried
> to convince some Atom/OWL developers to provide a transformation
> to RDF/XML, but they were only willing to do turtle.
> We specify how the XSLT1+RDF/XML case works completely;
> we give an example of how you may use XSLT to produce
> another media type (turtle). We discussed using something
> other than a MIME body altogether; e.g. javascript API calls.
> The spec allows for that without specifying how it works in 
> any detail.
> That's our understanding of the state-of-the-art:
>   - turtle support is fairly widespread
>   - while there are javascript RDF APIs, they're not very mature.
> [more on other comments/issues separately...]

Okay, but with regard to providing RDF/XML output, I do not see the word
"SHOULD" (in the RFC 2119 sense) in the spec.  Is it the WG's intent
that RDF/XML *SHOULD* be provided, but that an alternate RDF
serialization may be provided either instead of, or in addition to, the
RDF/XML output?  Or is it the WG's intent to be completely neutral about
what RDF serializations might be provided?

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 20:10:32 UTC

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