RE: Comments on GRDDL (using 3rd-party XML schemas with GRDDL) [OK?]


> [ . . . ]
> However, we cannot prevent additional and optional capabilities from
> being added to a GRDDL-aware agent in pursuant with a local 
> policy.  [ . . . ]

If I'm understanding you correctly, the intent of your suggested change
is to point out that GRDDL-aware agents can do things that are beyond
what the GRDDL spec licenses -- such as applying a 3rd party
transformation -- but if they do then the RDF results are not guaranteed
to be a Faithful Rendition and for this reason they should not be called
"GRDDL results".  If so, this sounds like a good idea, but I think the
wording change should be a bit more explicit about this.  

So how about adding one more sentence to what you suggested, so that the
chnage would read:
For example, a GRDDL-aware agent may have a
security policy that prevents it from accessing GRDDL 
located in untrusted domain names, it may be unable to apply
transformations given in a language it does not support, and it may
feature additional non-normative capabilities such as allowing
transformations to be found in schemas not specified at 
the namespace document.  Users should be bear in mind that RDF results
produced using such non-normative capabilities may not represent
a Faithful Rendition, and therefore may not represent conformant GRDDL

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 02:37:59 UTC