- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:06:04 +0100
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
I'm not sure myself - I believe there is a particular use-case that BenA and to a lesser extent DanC knows about that will clarify things - so we'll wait for one of them to describe it in detail. Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > > > > > 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 > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 15:06:16 UTC