- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:02:16 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Harry Halpin wrote: > Our charter specifically mentions RDF/A. embedded RDF, XML Schema, and > microformats. And we need a fairly comprehensive set of examples and > transforms, but we can't guarantee or "standardize" our transforms as > that is out of scope. However, our examples and test suite should work, > and to the extent they work people using GRDDL may adopt our transforms. This is one area of the charter that I've wanted to ask about for some time. With regards to XML Schema, the charter says: "tutorial materials and use cases sufficient to bootstrap adoption of GRDDL .. with XML Schemas" It's not clear if that means (1) using GRDDL to glean RDF from an XML schema (using a pre-written profile), (2) using some hueristic to 'generate' a GRDDL profile for instance documents that conform to the XML schema, or (3) Using GRDDL with 'stand-alone' XML vocabularies documented by existing XML schemas (as opposed to microformats, which are embedded in XHTML specifically)? I have some observations / concerns with each interpretation. If it's (1), I wonder how much semantic content you can glean from a dialect specific to expressing structural (and datatype) constraints, what would be the target RDF vocabulary, and what would you gain that you don't already have from processors that understand the XML schema dialect? If it's (2), I'm *very* interested and it is an unprecedented area we've (the research department I work for) invested quite a bit of research & development into, but the problem statement (as least as it currently is in the charter) is quite vague. If it's (3), I'm assuming the idea is tutorial material and best practices for writing GRDDL profiles (XSLT profiles, most likely) for well-established vocabularies with well-established schemas (but not neccessarily in an automated fashion as with the previous interpretation) such as DocBook, MathML, or any of the other major XML dialects mentioned in Tim Bray's very well written article [1] "Dont Invent XML Languages" or a follow-up thread [2] with some rather relevant commentary by alot of people that know much more about XML vocabulary modelling than I do. [1] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/01/08/No-New-XML-Languages [2] http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2006-01-12/Learn_how_ I'm sorta trying to get my head around what the intent was for that particular reference to XML schemas in the GRDDL charter, especially if it represents a 'requirement' we must meet. Chimezie Ogbuji Lead Systems Analyst Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Cleveland Clinic Foundation 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26 Cleveland, Ohio 44195 Office: (216)444-8593 ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 15:02:27 UTC