- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:08:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
An aside, although the official response will come from Dan himself. The reason GRDDL does not use third-party schemas is because it already has a mechanism (for both XHTML and XML) for pointing to third-party transformations. Since the only reason GRDDL uses a schema at the namespace URI is to find a transformation (as it uses no other part of the schema), it seems reasonable to assume that if a schema is somewhere else rather than at a namespace URI, then the user can simply directly point to the transformation given by the "third-party" schema. This keeps indirection to minimum. So, GRDDL is not ignoring schemas not at the namespace URI, and if those schemas point to a transformation, GRDDL can directly use that transformation. thanks, harry On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Jim Melton wrote: > > Dan, > > You may not understand why people would expect..., but it is obvious on the > face of things that SOME people do expect it, witnessed by the comments and > the repeated requests made to you. If we, members of W3C and of at least > room-temperature IQs, think this is something apparently missing, then it > seems likely that at least some other readers might have the same > misunderstanding. > > Since it is your group's decision not to "pay attention" to schemas in your > spec, I'm not going to try to persuade you to change that decision (at least > not in this message), but that does not mean that you shouldn't acknowledge > the expectations of some of your readers and at least say why you've made > that choice. > > Hope this helps, > Jim > > > At 7/18/2007 09:21 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> 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/ > > ======================================================================== > Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: +1.801.942.0144 > Co-Chair, W3C XML Query WG; F&O (etc.) editor Fax : +1.801.942.3345 > Oracle Corporation Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com > 1930 Viscounti Drive Standards email: jim dot melton at acm dot org > Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA Personal email: jim at melton dot name > ======================================================================== > = Facts are facts. But any opinions expressed are the opinions = > = only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody = > = else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand. = > ======================================================================== > > -- --harry Harry Halpin Informatics, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 22:09:01 UTC