- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:08:44 -0600
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 12:08 -0500, Ben Adida wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: > > I think that's overstating the situation a bit. I don't think this WG > > made any decisions about hGRDDL. (All our decisions are > > in our meeting minutes; if I'm forgetting one, a pointer will > > refute my claim conclusively.) > > I may be confused about what was discussed in offline conversations and > what happened on the mailing list. I should have double-checked. Indeed, > it doesn't look like there is a decision on hGRDDL in the GRDDL public > space. Right. > Maybe we can recreate hGRDDL effectively from existing > features... that would be fantastic. If not, we'll learn something by trying... > > Just use the normal GRDDL markup, just like the Atom/turtle test > > case and our decision on issue-output-formats shows. > > An RDFa document is a serialization of an RDF graph just like a > > turtle document is, no? > > Maybe I'm confused by Ian's recent message that says that he's not sure > how the proper URI would be obtained by an RDFa parser [1]. If it's > possible, then that's great. > > I'm looking at the Turtle example. I see the grddl:transformation triple > specifies the XSLT. The question is, can different transformations be > specified in the profile document, which the parser might be able to > select based on desired output format? From my read of the mailing list, > I think not. Right; but do you need such a thing? The author can just include multiple transformations. The consumer can just try them all. I'm getting a little confused about the details. Maybe you can sketch an example? > > Is that stuff really not specified to your satisfaction? > > I don't see specifications of what happens when there are multiple > PROFILEs in the HEAD. Hmm... didn't I have a figure about that? No... that was multiple <link rel="transformation">s. You're right; the spec isn't very clear on this... "if an information resource ?D has an XHTML representation whose profile attribute refers to ?PROFILE ... " -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#profile-bind I added a @@TODO to fix that in 1.174. Let's see... Dom made a test case... xhtmlWithMoreThanOneProfile Ah... but that's a test for robustness... <head profile='http://www.example.org/NotAGrddlProfile http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view http://www.example.org/AnotherUndereferencableProfile'> OK, I just cobbled together a test that shows that with 2 profiles, you find profileTransformations for each, run them, and merge the results: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/testlist2#multiprofile http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/multiprofile.html http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/multiprofile-output.rdf > I see what happens when there are multiple > <LINK>s. IIRC, there was a discussion about how each profile would be > processed separately, not pipelined or combined, but I can't find the > relevant thread. There's no serial interaction, but the results are combined, i.e. merged. "If F and G are GRDDL results of IR, then the merge [RDF-MT] of F and G is also a GRDDL result of IR" I'm not sure where pipelining would come into play. If you have a transformation that produces RDFa, it's just like a transformation that produces turtle: as long as the consuming agent understands how to get an RDF graph from the result of the transformation, it works; i.e. if it has a built-in RDFa parser, just like it might have a built-in turtle parser. More agents will know how to consume RDF/XML than other formats, so there's a deployment risk, but the design is reasonably clear, I think. > Note that "to my satisfaction" is the wrong qualifier. There are some > issues that I care about that the WG has not decided to make part of its > scope, and that's fine, GRDDL can't be everything to everyone. That > said, maybe everything I care about happens to be solved by the existing > spec, which would be great. I would be extremely happy if I had misread > the spec in that respect :) > > -Ben > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Dec/0043 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 21:08:52 UTC