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

RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?]

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:59:17 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C20294B1C0@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>

Minor correction to my comment:

> From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) 
> 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.)

Cancel that last "I hope not" sentence, as I don't
see a problem with permitting non-RDF/XML serializations
for the base case.  But I'm still wondering whether the
WG intends them to be permitted for the above base case.


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 02:59:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:29 UTC