- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:51:22 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On 9/6/06, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 10:50 +0200, Danny Ayers wrote: > [...] > > 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). > > Umm... why not? I don't see a conflict. If there are multiple > applicable transformations, there are multiple applicable > transformations. There are transformations that may be applicable in certain contexts, but not in all contexts, the publisher may want one and not another. A specific case is A) Atom/AtomOWL and B) Atom/RSS 1.0 - if you want to be able to roundtrip in an RDF system, A) should work, B) might not (thanks to multiple values for a given property on an item). Another scenario might be where the potential GRDDL Results Graph for a given GRDDL Source Document is OWL Full according to one transformation, OWL DL according to another. What I had in mind with the "SHOULD"s above was for the namespace doc to provide a default transformation, that could be overridden/switched off if the publisher preferred. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 16:51:35 UTC