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

On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 15:02 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> 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:
> [...] 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?

Indeed. The schema/ontology in the namespace document needs to
go in the spec too.

I added a TODO in v1.89 so I/we don't forget.
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec


>  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

-- 
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 23:01:38 UTC