Namespace document issues

I think we probably need to include a sentence or two giving the
options where more than one *different* transformations in the same
domain are potentially available. For example, for Atom there's
translation to AtomOWL and direct translation to RSS 1.0 (with the
slightly ugly potential for multiple titles etc for the same item). I
believe the assumption so far has been that there will only be one
transformation named in the namespace doc, which seems reasonable for
this iteration of the spec. But clarification is Good.

There's also  a potential conflict situation. I suspect we need a rule
that says that if a transformation has been explicitly stated in the
instance document, it SHOULD be applied, and that the transformation
provided in the namespace doc SHOULD not (unless that too is referred
to explicitly in the instance doc).

Looking at this it makes me wonder again over whether an
"non-authoritative"  marker might be desirable. It seems likely that
for the foreseeable future that most XML namespace docs won't list a
transformation, nor will instance docs. But there is value in
transforming to RDF and making that transformed data available to
other parties, even if the original publisher hasn't licensed the
specific data. I can still live with this being considered out of
scope...

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 08:50:29 UTC