- From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:05:53 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
On 05/09/2006 15:46, Dan Connolly wrote: > Rather than... > > | To make this document processable by a GRDDL-aware client > > let's say > > To explicitly relate the data in this document to the > RDF data model, ... > > or > > To explicitly make the data in this document available > in the Semantic Web ... Good suggestion. I'll rework the document in that style, although I'm not sure I will have time to do that before the call this week. > Then... > > | First she needs to add a profile attribute to the head element > | to denote that her document contains GRDDL metadata. > > What the profile attribute does is ground the term transformation > (as in rel="transformation") in URI space. I think it's better > to introduce the link first, then ground the link relationship > in URI space. I think I follow that, but I'm not sure. What would happen in the case of two profile URIs? Would the term transformation get two URIs? > Also... I wonder if it's exemplary to include the .xsl in > <link rel="transformation" > href="http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/glean-hcal.xsl"/> > > it's sort of more concrete and explicit, which is sometimes > good in a primer. But I'd rather leave the .xsl off in this > case. > Yes, I agree - it could be confusing in light of what we're saying about which transformation languages should be supported Ian
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 16:12:46 UTC