- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:44:21 -0500
- To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:41 AM, McBride, Brian wrote: > Reading > > http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec [editor's draft $Date: 2007/02/17 > 21:58:04 $] > > Section 7 begins: > > [[ > A GRDDL Agent is a software module that computes GRDDL results of > information resources. 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: > ]] > > I think this is ambiguous. It could be saying: > > Forall ?X, if ?X computes GRDDL results of information resources then > ?X > is a GRDDL Agent > > And therefore, if anything computes any GRDDL result it should conform > the rules in the list that follows. > > It could be saying: > > If ?X is a GRDDL agent then ?X computes GRDDL results of information > resources and should conform to the rules in the following list. > > I think you probably mean the latter. Hmm... I think I said what I meant; when elaborated using if/then, it becomes... ?X is a GRDDL Agent if and only if ?X computes GRDDL results of information resources; if ?X is a GRDDL Agent then ?X should... But I'm not at all sure that's more clear than the usual "a triangle is a three-sided polygon" style of definition. > I note that section 8 is written in terms, not of a GRDDL Agent but of > GRDDL-aware agents. So I'm not sure if the intent is to keep this term > also in the document. I don't think so; I sorta ran out of editing time and left it there to see if anybody would notice. I think it's best to scrub "GRDDL-aware agent" and go with "GRDDL agent" exclusively, but I'm interested in other opinions; in particular, should the use cases document use "GRDDL agent" as well? Somehow "GRDDL-aware agent" seems like a good choice of words if we're not really introducing a new conformance label, but as long as we are, we might as well strike "aware" and go with "GRDDL agent". > If so, it might be helpful to distinguish it > clearly from a GRDDL Agent. > > Does the following express what you mean? > > [[ > A GRDDL Aware Agent computes GRDDL results according to the rules in > this specification That suggests that the rules say how to compute the results rather than just saying what graphs are [correct] GRDDL results. I don't want to suggest that. > but may be designed not to compute all the GRDDL > results of an input representation. As an elaboration of "local configuration," that seems not quite useful without giving an example or otherwise saying *why* it might be designed that way. I'm inclined to let "local configuration" stand on its own. > A GRDDL Agent is a GRDDL Aware > Agent that conforms to the following requirements. Given a URI I of an > information resource IR, and an Xpath node N for a representation of > IR, > except where proscribed by the security considerations described below > or by local policy as expressed in its configuration, a GRDDL Agent > should: > > ... > ]] > > Or am I just confused? I don't see any evidence of confusion; our stylistic preferences seem to differ, though. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 20:44:03 UTC