- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:22:42 -0400
- To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20061026174706.02075c90@mail.muzmo.com>
Further on this thread: At SCO we used a set of REL values which were employed by the browser. There was no value associated with the profile attribute and no namespace declaration because there was no XML or namespaces then. The browser had knowledge of the REL values. Our entire UNIX, X11, Motif and all other documentation (which would fill half of a normal office bookcase) was encoded using one of Dan's early HTML DTDs from 1993 along with a few REL values. The browser had a small set of toolbar icons that were related to the link REL values. The browser asserted authority over the meaning of link elements in those documents. And we documented the fact so that anyone using the scohelp browser could take advantage of this service that the browser offered. There is no saying that future browser (or user-agent) makers will not initiate their own policies to interpret the meaning of REL values and META scheme/name/value triples. That is, although an author or designer neglects to include a GRDDL Transformation link, an agent remains at liberty to infer a non-GRDDL Transformation link according to its own policies. Dan designed GRDDL so that authors and namespace designers could make assertions that are essentially binding contracts between data-providers and data-consumers. There is no room for third parties to be involved in these contracts, morally or legally. The role of a third-party transformation might at best be paraphrasing and at worst completely distorting the meaning of the data. In any case, provenance becomes uncertain and the chain of evidence is broken. That's not to dispute the potential usefulness of 3rd party transformations, but they are not in keeping with Dan's original intent to enable forming binding transformation contracts among willing participants. Just another 2 bits chipped into the pot. Murray
Received on Friday, 27 October 2006 03:38:38 UTC