- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:24:05 -0400
- To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > > On 24 Jul 2007, at 10:38 , Harry Halpin wrote: > >> ... >> I understand that's a perfectly sensible use-case, but not for GRDDL as >> it stands. There is a technical difficulty: Since the schema is not at >> the namespace document and not marked up in the document, how would the >> GRDDL processor ever discover your schema annotations by "following its >> nose" from the source document? > > I imagine it happening the same way it happens for schema > processors. Different schema processors do it differently; > possible mechanisms include invocation-time parameters, > catalogs, local repositories, well-known locations, > dereferencing the namespace name, and of course hints in > the document. > > From this discussion I understand that if a GRDDL processor > allows me to specify where to find schema documents I'd like > to use, then that processor doesn't conform to the GRDDL > spec. That seems a shame to me. We do not forbid GRDDL agents from allowing "local policy" to provide additional parameters for GRDDL processing - in fact, we go through great pains in the specification and the test-suite to allow local policy to determine certain types of processing as regards security and processing, and it is under this rubric that one could imagine a local policy specifying that all documents of vocabulary X use transformation associated with a schema at the non-namespace document location Y through an additional parameter. However, as GRDDL is an intentionally lightweight specification that purposively avoided adding additional required parameters, we did not *require* GRDDL-aware agents to have this parameter, as GRDDL-aware agents may have *no parameters*. So, a GRDDL-aware agent could have additional parameters specifying schemas and transformations locations in accordance with local policy, and *still be a conformant GRDDL specification* as long as it passes our test-suite. However, we do not specify this sort of behavior in out test-suite, as it would be local policy. >> For your use-case, since the location of the schema and associated with >> is known by you, but not described the document or namespace document, >> it would make more sense to explicitly write your transformation to RDF >> for the type of vocabulary using something like XProc [2] I think rather >> than GRDDL, or simply use the transformation using a processing language >> like XSLT or XQuery directly. >> >> The only solution would be to add an arbitrary parameter to GRDDL. >> However, we have endeavored in the WG to make GRDDL "parameter-free" and >> instead rely on "following-your-nose" and "following other specs" to >> find the transformation, and if one wants to add an parameter to GRDDL >> to locate a transformation, one should just use the processing language >> like XSLT or XQuery locally and directly rather than relying on GRDDL, >> since there is no advantage using GRDDL would provide in this case over >> existing software. >> >> Does this answer satisfy you? > > It comes a lot closer, thanks. If the GRDDL spec anywhere says > roughly what you say in the preceding few paragraphs, I think I > probably am satisfied; I'll need to sleep on it to be sure. > (And of course I do not speak for the XML Query and XSL WGs. > Satisfying me is probably a good step toward satisfying the WGs, > but they are distinct concepts.) Thanks - do get back to me once this answer satisfies you. If you wish for a particular sentence(s) to be added to the specification specifying this, please specify those sentences. Note re your and Chime's dialogue about authority, note that *of course* a schema at a location somewhere besides the URI of the may be authoritative. However, it may also just not be found a GRDDL-aware agent. We imagine for your use-case that authors will likely use XQuery or XSLT directly, perhaps in combination with XProc, or possibly some GRDDL-aware agent whose local policy specifies a transformation. > Michael > > > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 00:24:49 UTC