- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:34:22 -0500
- To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
At 04:01 PM 2/17/2007 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 14:27 -0500, Murray Maloney wrote: [...] > > I have a quibble with step 2.... > > [...] a GRDDL Agent should: > > 1. Find each transformation associated with N, i.e. > > [...] > > 2 Apply each transformation to obtain a GRDDL result. > > 3 Merge those GRDDL results. > > > > I agree that an agent should be aware of each transformation that is > > associated with N. I also agree that results should be merged. > > However, I think that a GRDDL-aware agent should have some discretion > > with respect to which transformation(s) are applied. Perhaps that is the > > reason that "should" was used instead of "must". In a given situation, > > only one or a specific set of transformations may be applicable -- at the > > discretion of the client on whose behalf the agent is performing. > >Yes, it should have some discretion. I meant for "local policy >an configuration" to convey that sense of discretion... > >"Given a URI I of an information resource IR, and an XPath node N for a >representation of IR, subject to security considerations below and local >policy and configuration, a GRDDL Agent should:" > >Is that perhaps clear enough on second look? That would be enough for me, because I understand the intent of the exception, but I wonder whether other readers would be able to extract the same meaning. I think that we need to somehow make it clear that a GRDDL-aware agent is an agent which acts on behalf of a client that may exercise some authority over the agent and may interdict some of the agent's actions to suit it's own policies. While that may seem intuitive to the members of the WG, I doubt that our intuition can be gleaned from the spec. Regards, Murray
Received on Sunday, 18 February 2007 17:52:28 UTC