- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:19:04 +0100
- To: "Murray Maloney" <murray@muzmo.com>
- Cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On 07/11/06, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com> wrote: > > At 12:38 PM 11/7/2006 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > >If rev 1.155 of section 2 is clear, I can try something like that in > >section 3. > > I am able to follow the normative parts of Section 2, with or without the > examples. Ditto. [[ If an information resource IR has an XML representation whose root element has a namespace name NS and for any TX, the resource identified by NS has a GRDDL result that is the merge of { ?NSDOC <http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#namespaceTransformation> ?TX } with any other RDF graphs, then TX is a GRDDL transformation of IR ]] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#ns-bind Seems essentially ok, though as suggested "subgraph" may be clearer, along the lines of "...GRDDL result that contains a subgraph with the pattern { ?NSDOC <http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#namespaceTransformation> ?TX }". It also seems a little confusing having "a GRDDL result that is the merge..." alongside "TX is a GRDDL transformation". Dunno, maybe we need a bit of terminology to help distinguish between what you might call *the* GRDDL result (as in what you get from applying all mechanisms/transformations) and *a* GRDDL result (pre-merge sub-result coming from a single transformation/mechanism). I'm curious - anyone know of any (ideally normative) docs anywhere that include special-casing of the root element, or similar post-mime mechanisms to determine doc type? I think the approach is plenty good enough for this revision of the spec, but there may prove to be cases that are unnecessarily unGRDDLable and/or lead to unnecessary complexity. Take for example XHTML used as Atom content. If XHTML has a GRDDL profile defined, but Atom doesn't, then any embedded RDF is unreachable. If Atom does have a profile, and its desirable to make the XHTML-encoded RDF available, based on the root element namespace mechanism then unless I'm missing something there would need to be an additional mechanism to enable further nose-following to get to the XHTML transformations from the Atom definition. (It's not possible for the Atom profile to reference every possible content type, any namespaced XML can go in). Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 11:19:14 UTC