- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:19:40 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
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