- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:26:35 +0100
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg@w3.org
Here's a use-case: Say there's a web-page marked up with hCals and hCards, and so has transformations in XSLT 1.0 for both to RDF vocabularies. The client is only interested in events, not in people's contact details. So, does the client: 1) Run both transforms, then merge the RDF graphs of the results. 2) Run only the relevant transform, i.e. hCal to RDF. Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Dan Connolly wrote: > >>> However, I do think we should clarify that either the client should >>> either: >>> >>> 1) If it can run a transforms, it runs the transform. >>> >>> 2) Or if can run a transform, the client may or may not run the >>> transform. >> >> I think the spec already says 2) clearly enough. > > 1> >> I think introducing conformance labels like "GRDDL client" is >> much more trouble than it's worth. > > Than is my action item regarding defining such labels a moot point? > >> I think specifying the meaning of documents and publishing >> examples and test cases is sufficient (as well as necessary). >> >> Given the security issues around running code published >> in the Web, which transformations to run clearly must >> be left up to local policy, no? > > I'm not sure. I mean, I can see the security issues being a prime > factor in having the 'client' decide which transformations to run, but > assuming there were no issues with 'local' policy, I don't understand > how you can claim the transformations (identified by the publisher) > 'preserve' the author's meaning but leave it up to the client which > transformations to run. > > Perhaps, a clear usecase as to the value of choosing to only run a > subset (besides security considerations) would help me understand the > value in this. Looking at the xml-stylesheet processing instruction > specification, it doesn't seem to leave the matter up to the client. > > [[[ > > Multiple xml-stylesheet processing instructions are also allowed with > exactly the same semantics as with LINK REL="stylesheet". > > ]]] > > I'm not aware of what is expectred of the client from a > link/@rel='stylesheet' in an XHTML document (does it have the option > to not apply the stylesheet?). > > >> Consider an agent that has a hard-coded list of profile >> and/or transformation URIs; its policy is to execute >> those transformations and no others. >> For example, a big data aggregator (think: yahoo local, ...) >> might publish a list of 20 profiles and transformations >> (hCard, eRDF, ...) and offer to aggregate data that uses >> those profiles. They might add new ones over time, after >> carefully reviewing and caching the published XSLT implementation, >> or by re-implementing the transformation in C locally. >> >> Is anybody interested to make a test case to illustrate >> that case? > > I might, mostly because I'm concerned that there is a conflict with > claiming the transformation preserve the document's meaning (which is > a vague statement in itself) and not mandating that all referred > transformations should be run (barring local such policies) > > Chimezie Ogbuji > Lead Systems Analyst > Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery > Cleveland Clinic Foundation > 9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26 > Cleveland, Ohio 44195 > Office: (216)444-8593 > ogbujic@ccf.org > > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 16:26:48 UTC