Re: [#issue-output-formats] Four options for discussion

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 08:23 -0400, Harry Halpin wrote:
> ... snip ...
> 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.

I very much like this compromise (much more so than mandating RDF/XML 
explicitely knowing fully well that there are several other alternative 
syntaxes with significant critical mass), my only additions would be:

1. To speak of the 'associated' GRDDL transformation algorithm directly 
rather than say the grddl:transformation property relates ... (only because there are 
additional ways an algorithm can be associated with the source)

2. I would emphasize that the output is 'mime-typed' (as Ben put it) RDF 
abstract syntax.  This works perfectly for XSLT but I'm not sure about the general case for 
a transformation algorithm (though you would think it's good practice 
generally for an XML transform to accompany an authoritative mimetype or 
output format - the way XSLT does).

Ofcourse this compromise conflicts with the charter as Dan pointed [1] out 
earlier.

> 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  /> .

XML document is the language used in the XSLT spec abstract.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0105.html

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

Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 13:19:49 UTC