- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:21:19 -0500
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Cc: Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 18:51 -0600, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote: [...] > Schema documents used for validation or annotation are not always > mentioned explicitly in the document to be validated and cannot > necessarily be found by dereferencing the namespace name (since > the namespaces spec offers no guarantee that it can be > dereferenced). Even when some schema documents CAN be found that > way, those are not necessarily the schema documents the user > wishes or needs to use. I don't understand why people would expect GRDDL to do anything with such schemas. In what sense should such schemas be considered part of the meaning of the document? > Users of XML Schema accustomed to using schema documents to guide > the annotation of document instances are likely to be surprised > by the failure of a spec like GRDDL to support a common use case. I don't think I understand what use case you have in mind at all. Could you elaborate, sort of in story form? Bob produces a purchase order document and ... or Linda makes a patient record document and ... Preferably the story will include at least two parties: one that produced the document, and one that consumes it, and it should somehow be clear that the producer has licensed the data that the consumer gets out of their GRDDL agent, per the "Faithful Renditions" section. http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_rend -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 15:21:31 UTC