Re: Review of testlist1#rdfa1

>Murray,
>
>Yes, I agree that that is the appropriate output. But I have to point
>out that this WG ruled out of scope the "hGRDDL transformation" proposal
>I made at the very beginning.

Sorry. I am not familiar with that proposal.


>Here's what I wanted to see:
>
>1) an RDFa-aware browser sees the profile and locates the corresponding
>HTML->HTML+RDFa transformation, GRDDL style.
>
>2) the transformation is performed inline on the DOM of the page,
>yielding proper HTML+RDFa with appropriately updated RELs and CLASSes
>that were specified by the profile transformations. This transformed
>HTML can be rendered normally.
>
>3) the updated, rendered page can be parsed using the normal RDFa,
>yielding RDF attached to their corresponding DOM nodes.

So, if I follow you, the original source is transformed into an instance that
is augmented with RDFa decorations. I can see the value in such an idea.
However, I can also see how it is out of scope for GRDDL. Nonetheless,
I also think that merging the source and GRDDL result into an augmented
HTML+RDFa instance is something that requires a subordinate GRDDL-aware
processor. So when we have GRDDL completed, you will be able to leverage
its capabilities as one component in an XProc Pipeline. More importantly,
GRDDL will be able to extract more from information-rich HTML+RDFa
documents.


>This also enables microformats to be transformed to RDFa, which is
>fantastic for all involved.
>
>The big issue to resolve is (1). How do I request the appropriate
>HTML->HTML+RDFa transformation? Is there some content negotiation, or
>some other clever trick, to determine which transformation I want to
>use? How do I handle the case of multiple profiles? One after the other?
>In which order?

I think that the transformation from source to HTML+RDFa is out of scope 
for GRDDL.
It is entirely within the scope of your application to use GRDDL results to 
inform
a transformation from HTML to HTML+RDFa. Since the spec is silent on the 
obligations
of GRDDL-aware processors, it is safe to assume that your application can 
specify
how to get that transformation. GRDDL will help you by doing its part. If 
your GRDDL
result includes a triple that tell you how to perform other 
transformations, then you win.
So the spec for your application just needs to say how to output that 
triple along with
the otherwise expected GRDDL result.

>So yeah, in theory I agree, but with these issues judged out of scope,
>the RDFa group is stuck trying to figure out how to make this happen.
>With GRDDL, we can certainly take it straight from HTML to RDF, but then
>we lose the rendered-HTML/RDF correspondence that RDFa strives to maintain.

As I say, you can use GRDDL to help you achieve your desired result.

Regards,

Murray

Received on Saturday, 16 December 2006 20:41:37 UTC