- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:48:19 -0500
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 08:23 -0400, Harry Halpin wrote: > Since we've promised to discuss this issue of output formats today[1], > maybe we can clarify some of our options. Here's how I see some of them, > although I'm sure this is incomplete at best: > > 1) GRDDL Processors should output only RDF in the RDF/XML concrete syntax. I think you mean GRDDL transformations, right? > 2) GRDDL Processors should output the RDF/XML concrete syntax and may to > other W3C-recommended concrete syntaxes for RDF. > > 3) GRDDL Processors should output to a W3C-recommended concrete syntax > for RDF. > > 4) GRDDL Processors can output to any concrete syntax for RDF. The way I would probably phrase it in the spec is to say that the grddl:transformation property relates a document to an algorithm whose input is XML and whose output is RDF abstract syntax. Hmm... XML infoset? or DOM? or XPath data model? I wonder if it matters. But I don't think it should be raw XML syntax; i.e. a GRDDL algorithm shouldn't have different output for <abc/> and <abc /> . > Also, we should clarify the level of our mandate - i.e. whether we should > use stronger or weaker language that "should" - and so clarify whether > a certain output syntax is recommended or required. Note that "should" is for constraining agents in protocols; sometimes the right verb is just "is". i.e. there's no reason to say "2 + 2 must be 4" when we can just say "2 + 2 is 4". > > So, for option 1), any GRDDL Processor that produces something besides > RDF/XML (i.e. RDFa or n3) would be going against the recommendation. > However, assuming RDFa or n3 becomes at some point in the future W3C Recs > (which is likely for RDFa), then option 2) would also recommend these, > although we suggest that RDF/XML be preferred if all other things are > equal. Currently option 3) is the same as option 1) since, well, RDF/XML is the only > W3C-approved syntax, but again this could change in the future - so 3) is > just a less contrained version of 2). 4) is the most unconstrained, as it > allows any person to design their own syntax for RDF (possibly without > publishing their "spec"), and then have their GRDDL output to that syntax > - and still be within the recommendation. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-output-formats -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:49:22 UTC