Re: GRDDL and HTML5

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Harry Halpin wrote:
>   
Just to double-check:

You don't have any problems with GRDDL's use of profile if it's a 
@rel="profile", or GRDDL's use of @rel="transformation", correct?
>> But you might want to make your own profile, say "microChemistry", and 
>> give it a profile page, and use that profile. Profiles are extensible.
>>     
>
> You could do the same thing but without the profile page, just by adding 
> the transformation to your list of GRDDL transformations. Then it would 
> even work on pages that use your vocabulary but forgot to copy the 
> profile="".
>   
Yes, that would be true, but you'd have to explicitly add it to your 
list of GRDDL transformations. Which is also work. So, for agents when 
encountering a profile that has a transformation that is not locally 
cached, they could "dynamically" run the GRDDL tranformation by going to 
the profile page.
>   
>> The general idea behind using profiles was *not* as a substitute for a a 
>> link to a GRDDL transform, but that authors that use profiles could add 
>> a link to GRDDL transform to their profile page, and the GRDDL algorithm 
>> could look for a GRDDL transform there if one wasn't directly linked. 
>> Think of it as a short-cut for document authors - they just have to 
>> think about using particular profiles, rather than directly linking to a 
>> GRDDL transformation.
>>     
>
> Not having a profile="" attribute is also a shortcut for document authors. 
> Instead of having to think about using particular profiles, they just have 
> to use them, possibly without knowing (e.g. by pasting in code from tools 
> or other pages).
>   

Yes, that is what microformats in the wild does. There are concerns 
about naming clashes, etc. which I am not sure how the microformat 
community plans to resolve. URIs are one way, so are profiles, etc. All 
have issues, depending on your preference.

>   
>> That way the owner of the profile document can upgrade the GRDDL 
>> transformation once without modifying all instance data that uses that 
>> profile.
>>     
>
> I understand that the RDF community believes that it is better for content 
> to define how its vocabularies work (whatever that means) rather than 
> having the tools just natively support the vocabularies, but it seems much 
> better to me to just have the tools natively support the vocabularies. 
> That way, you upgrade the tool and everything works better, instead of 
> having to upgrade the tool and the vocabulary definitions and hope that 
> everyone has linked everything together.
>   
Well, I am in support of both, just as different options, so one can get 
the best of both worlds - tools that upgrade their vocabularies 
dynamically in a decentralized environment, but also tools that allow 
the most common vocabularies to be part of the default - as long as the 
user maintains control of their tool. But I in no-way speak for the rest 
of the GRDDL community, much less the RDF community as a whole.
>   
>> So, our "microChemistry" profile page could embed a GRDDL tranformation 
>> directly in that profile page, or require all instance data to both list 
>> the profile page and a rel="transformation" directly to the profile. The 
>> first seems easier.
>>     
>
> Wouldn't the easiest option just be for people who want to use GRDDL to 
> obtain "microChemistry" data to just tell GRDDL about microChemistry, and 
> not require the authos to do any linking at all?
>
>
>   
>> Again, the use of profiles and direct linking to a GRDDL transform via 
>> rel="transformation" are two separate cases. I assume you are happy with 
>> rel="transformation" rather than rel="grddl-transformation".
>>     
>
> I am, but some people seem to think that clashes are a problem and would 
> rather that all names be long URLs, so others may object.
>
>

Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 12:46:56 UTC