Re: Liasoning with XML Processing Group?

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Harry Halpin wrote:

>
> I was recently talking to Murray Maloney when discussing GRDDL
> informally that for some of our more complex use cases (using multiple
> arguments with GRDDL, BenA's case of multiple chained transformations)
> that we might want to liason with the XML Processing Model Group Working
> Group, as they are encountering many of the same issues when
> transforming XML->XML. What do people think?

Sounds like a good idea.

> More importantly, how wedded are we to use-cases that require these sort
> of things? GRDDL as it stands now is a single transformation (usually
> XSLT) applied to a single HTML file that returns RDF. However, a number
> of use cases have been brought up, albeit informally, that wish to
> expand upon this. How serious are we? My opinion is that if there is
> clearly demonstrated need for such use case and they can be implemented
> in a consistent and elegant manner, I am fine with them.
>  Yet complexity
> for the sake of complexity without concrete use cases is a bad thing :)

Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is writing an XSLT transform 
from the original XHTML to an XML vocabulary that already has an 
'established' GRDDL profile.  Using XSLT chains in this way encourages the reuse of
profiles by allowing the transform author to only address the mapping 
between similar vocabularies (as a deterent to the proliferation of transforms / profiles for 
vocabularies with similar semantics but rather different syntax).

-- Chimezie Ogbuji

Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 04:11:36 UTC