- From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:59:37 -0600
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
On 18 Jul 2007, at 16:08 , Harry Halpin wrote: > 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 if I have a few thousand, or a few hundred thousand, documents in the same vocabulary, and use a schema for that vocabulary which is not at the namespace name but which is accessible to my processes, the advice of the GRDDL group is not to document the transformation in the schema document, but to edit each document and add an explicit link to the GRDDL transformation for that vocabulary? Given that the semantics are associated with the vocabulary, and the annotations for the vocabulary are documented in the schema document I use -- and given that there's no particular technical difficulty involved here, that I can see -- why would I as a document owner want to incur that kind of cost and introduce that kind of redundancy? --C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 23:59:43 UTC