- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:34:38 -0400
- To: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Andrew Eisenberg" <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-xsl-query@w3.org>, "Ogbuji, Chimezie" <OGBUJIC@ccf.org>
Harry, > [ . . . ] > 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 transformations 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 results. ]] David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software +1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com http://www.hp.com/go/software 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