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

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 09:19 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>> 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)
>
> What additional ways? Aren't they all ways of expressing
> an RDF statement whose property is grddl:transformation?
> I suppose the spec hasn't been clear about that so far. Hmm.

Nope, it isn't.  Clear for the author perhaps.  See my earlier 
email [1] about what exactly are the specific RDF properties that relate sources 
to transforms.  Sure, we have 'informal' schema/ontology at the namespace 
URL, but why not include it in the specification or refer to it 
explicitely? I generally do not see the value in leaving 
descriptions of important mechanisms (such as this) cryptic.
You don't have to be redundant to be clear.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0070.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 19:02:28 UTC