Re: GRDDL and OWL/XML

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 19:54 +0100, Harry Halpin wrote:
[...]
> Your argument is that the CR report specifies the function abstractly. 
> I'm pretty sure the GRDDL WG was not thinking of non-executable 
> functions when developing GRDDL. I would like to here other opinions of 
> whether or not a GRDDL transformation has to be "executable."

A prose specification of a transformation function is just as
much a representation of a transformation function as an XSLT document.

But...

> My personal opinion is that I am not sure what the utility of it is if 
> it can't be executable,

exactly, as prose isn't a "widely-supported format"...


"Developers of transformations should make available representations in
widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] is the format most
widely supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this writing ... ."
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 14:22:20 UTC