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

The XML Query and XSL Working Groups discussed this topic
on their joint call today and expressed themselves content
with the resolution of our comment in the form of words given
by Harry Halpin below, with the amendment suggested by
Jonathan Robie and endorsed by HH.

Thank you for your work in helping clarify and resolve the
comment.

--C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
   on behalf of the W3C XML Query and XSL Working Groups


On 30 Jul 2007, at 10:15 , Harry Halpin wrote:

>
> Fine with me!
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Harry,
>>
>> This looks good, except for one phrase.
>>
>>> Furthermore, in addition to being GRDDL-aware, an agent may  
>>> feature optional capabilities such as allowing a schema and an  
>>> associated transformation not at the namespace URI to be looked  
>>> up using a non-standard mechanism,
>>
>> The phrase "non-standard mechanism" might be interpreted as a  
>> mechanism not defined in the W3C XML Schema specification, and I  
>> think the new language is being added at least partly to make sure  
>> that the *standard* mechanisms such as schema location hints can  
>> be used. I'd suggest changing this to "allowing a schema and an  
>> associated transformation not at the namespace URI to be looked up  
>> using the mechanisms defined in the W3C XML Schema specification."
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> Harry Halpin wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> So, here's my re-take on the wording changes that I think takes into
>>> account DanC's and DavidB's concerns with my original set of  
>>> changes.
>>> "The GRDDL specification states that any transformation  
>>> identified by an author of a GRDDL source document will provide a  
>>> Faithful Rendition <http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#sec_rend> of the  
>>> information expressed in the source document. The specification  
>>> also grants a GRDDL-aware agent the license <http://www.w3.org/TR/ 
>>> 2007/WD-grddl-20070302/#sec_agt> to
>>> makes a determination of whether or not to apply a particular  
>>> transformation guided by user interaction, a local security  
>>> policy, or the agent's capabilities. [For example, a GRDDL-aware  
>>> agent may have a security policy that prevents it from accessing  
>>> GRDDL transformations located in untrusted domain names or it may  
>>> be unable to apply transformations given in a language it does  
>>> not support, and so it may be unable to produce the faithful  
>>> rendition. Furthermore, in addition to being GRDDL-aware, an  
>>> agent may feature optional capabilities such as allowing a schema  
>>> and an associated transformation not at the namespace URI to be  
>>> looked up using a non-standard mechanism, and the results of  
>>> applying such a transformation may not be a faithful rendition.]   
>>> In defining these tests it was assumed that the GRDDL-aware agent  
>>> being tested is using a security policy which does *not* prevent  
>>> it from applying transformations identified in each test [,  
>>> supports XSLT 1.0, and does not rely on any capabilities outside  
>>> those defined in the GRDDL Specification]. Such an agent should  
>>> produce the GRDDL result associated with each normative test,  
>>> except as specified immediately below."
>>> This is addressed to the XML/XSL Query WG, DanC, and DavidB, and  
>>> Chime -
>>> since as Editor Chime has to make the actual edits.
>>>
>>>> I assume that may different parties might license different sets of
>>>> valid inferences from a given schema or document. What determines
>>>> which of these inferences are "faithful renditions"? I  
>>>> understand the
>>>> mechanics of how these transformations are found, but I'm trying to
>>>> understand the user model.
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> 				--harry
>
> 	Harry Halpin
> 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin
>

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 15:47:49 UTC