- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:10:20 -0400
- 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 http://www.hp.com/go/software
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 20:10:32 UTC