- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:51:29 -0600
- To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:38 AM, McBride, Brian wrote: >>> Section 9 of the spec has "@@this section needs work". >> >> Indeed. I haven't finished thinking thru which terms that I'm >> using in the mechanical rules should be in the GRDDL >> vocabulary and which should go somewhere else... OK, I just checked in that chunk http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#grddlvocab Revision 1.224 2007/02/20 01:42:36 connolly - fleshed out GRDDL vocabulary/schema section -- added InformationResource, RootNode, RDFGraph -- moved "every transformation has a transformationProperty" from a rule to OWL in the GRDDL schema - rationalized namespaces in mechanical rules - refined introduction of mechanical rules - lightened assertion background color in preparation for using more of it I think the contents of the GRDDL vocabulary document should be captured in a test case; especially the fact that there are no namespaceTransformation nor profileTransformation triples in it. >> nor how to >> get that namespace document to serve well as both a "getting started" >> (i.e. a glorified link to the primer) and a reference. I haven't looked at http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view from that angle... > It's a great deal of work being editor! Well, perhaps I'm not doing a sufficiently good job at sharing the load. In particular, making sure http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view is a good "getting started" document and jumping off point is something anybody in the WG should be able to help with. >>> How close to having last call candidate spec are we? >> >> Well, the spec is always a candidate, I suppose... if things >> go well, I'll have disposed of all @@s one way or another >> before Henry sends out this week's agenda. > > I'm not griping; oops; did I get defensive? > just was trying to get a clear picture of where folks > think we are. On this schedule I won't have time to review it before > the telecon this week. Understandable. >>> the mechanical rules appendix is missing. >> >> Missing? Well, it could use a lot of work, or maybe it could >> be dropped altogether. But it's there. >> http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_rules > > You are right - I only looked for it in place - didn't spot the link. > > <skulks a bit>I'm not very familiar with N3 rules and was looking for > something to explain to me how to interpret the ones in the spec. I > don't think we can assume everyone knows how to read them. That > doesn't > seem to be the sort of thing in the mechanical rules document though. OK, I wrote that bit too... http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_rules 1.7 2007/02/20 01:38:07 I could still imagine yanking all that stuff out of the spec, but I did manage to go over it with Michael Sperberg-McQueen and Sandro Hawke and they did get it. That took almost an hour by phone, but that was before the prose I just wrote was available. Does the prose come close to explaining adequately? >> >> Another major @@ is under issue-http-header-links >> @@TODO: integrate the proposal in the spec >> That one is still outstanding. Patches welcome! -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:51:48 UTC