- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:04:03 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>,Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org,public-grddl-wg@w3.org, alanruttenberg@gmail.com
For the record, I disagree with the position being put forward by Harry Halpin as chair of the former GRDDL WG. ============================= On point #1, while it may not be the deployment strategy that Harry and others favor, I acknowledge Bijan Parsia's interpretation of the GRDDL specification. To wit, the target of a grddl:transformation link may be anything that yields a GRDDL result from a corresponding resource: "If an information resource([WEBARCH], section 2.2) IR is represented by an XML document with an XPath root node R, and R has a GRDDL transformation with a transformation property TP, and TP applied to R gives an RDF Graph[RDFC04] G, then G is a GRDDL result of IR." The onus would be on Bijan and others to demonstrate that the OWL-->RDF mapping spec is sufficient to yield a faithful RDF graph. That might require an existence proof. It should be noted that pointing to an XSL transformation is not equivalent to pointing to an executable. An XSL transformation is opaque to anyone without an XSLT processor of the appropriate version. ============================= On point #2, Harry claims: "The advantage of having a GRDDL from OWL 2 to RDF is that it is to a larger audience (RDF users without an explicit OWL 2 to RDF transform), who might otherwise be unable to have what benefits OWL 2. in RDF, can have these benefits with a minimal of work." To paraphrase: "The advantage to using A is that you don't have to use B." Please explain how it could be better to use an ad-hoc transformation of OWL-->RDF over the specification that has been explicitly designed to perform that function. An XSL transformation requires an XSLT processor. An OWL-->RDF mapping requires an OWL-->RDF processor. Without claiming that XSLT is superior in any fashion, please explain logically how you can argue that an XSL transform is REQUIRED in any way. ============================= On point #3: GRDDL discusses the ramifications of having a popular transform. Designers of GRDDL-aware and OWL-aware processors should be encouraged to build in transformations for common document classes.
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 13:03:53 UTC