Re: Conformance Labels

To me, the value of conformance labels - or, as I would prefer it, just
a "standard vocabulary" for talking about GRDDL -  is primarily a
practical question. Does having a uniform vocabulary to describe the
various components of a GRDDL processs help or hinder its explanation?
If the component names are intuitive and help make things easier for
people to talk about GRDDL, then it might be a good idea. If the names
make things more complicated and the spec harder to read, then they're
probably a bad idea. We already talk about "transformations" but we
don't have a word to talk about the actual program that runs the
transformation, or a document that is capable of being transformed.

I'd go through the documents (including the primer and use-cases
document) and look for particular sentences where matters at hand are
ambiguous or whether using a standardized vocabulary would help makes
things more clear.

 However, I'm a bit overburdened to take that action item on myself
right now. Chime - what do you think?

Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
>> Could you elaborate on what you mean? What does it mean for a document
>> to register a hook? Documents aren't people/agents; they
>> don't _do_ things (except perhaps to say something).
>
> A GRDDL Document is an XML document which includes specific mechanisms
> (content?) for a GRDDL Processor to use to extract Resource
> Descriptions which preserve it's meaning.  In particular:
>
> 1. An XHTML document which refers to the GRDDL namespace as a meta
> data profile and includes one or more transformation links types which
> associate the original document with the indicated transformations.
> 2. An XHTML document which refers to a meta data profile, which itself
> is a GRDDL Document whose meaning includes one or more RDF statements
> which relate the original document with transformations via the
> data-view:profileTransformation property.
> 3. An XML document with a data-view:transformation attribute on it's
> root element
> 4. An XML document where the XML namespace URI of it's root element
> (when dereferenced) refers to a document whose meaning (either
> expressed directly as RDF or derived from a subsequent GRDDL
> transformation) includes RDF statements which relate the original
> document with a transformation via the
> data-view:namespaceTransformation property.
>
>
>> Is this a GRDDL XML Document?
>>     <z/>
>
> It's neither of the above 4, so no.
>
>>
>> How about this?
>>     <z xmlns="http://example.org/terms" />
>
> Depends on what is dereferenced from http://example.org/terms (4th
> criteria from above)
>
>>
>> How about this?
>>     <z xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/pg23" />
>
> Same as above
>
>> Does it depend on the representations available from .../pg23 ?
>> i.e. does the question of whether an XML document is a GRDDL
>> document depend on the state of the web as well as the text
>> of the document?
>
> I think the dereference terminology covers the criteria regarding the
> state of the web.
>
>> I can imagine them, but I don't want to encourage them by giving
>> conformance labels to them.
>
> Fair enough.  How about:
>
> A GRDDL Processor is a software agent which supports all of the
> possible mechanisms that a GRDDL Document can use to register
> transformations that preserve it's meaning. <insert appropriate
> description of supported transformation languages. XSLT, etc..>.
> <insert appropriate language about local policy and how they can
> effect the GRDDL processor's determination of which transformation
> algorithms to apply?>
>
> 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 19:20:15 UTC