RDFa, Embedded RDFa and GRDDL

I am having trouble with the part of our charter [1] that states we
"tutorial materials and use cases sufficient to bootstrap adoption of 
GRDDL", "as newer work such as RDFa  and Embedded RDF" due to the fact 
that a RDFa->RDF/XML GRDDL transformation does not exist and Embedded RDF 
does not support XML Schema datatypes. I feel that in both these cases the 
ball is clearly in the court of Embedded RDF and RDFa, not the GRDDL WG.

In the case of Embedded RDF, while it allows us to embed some fragment of 
RDF, it does not currently work in the example in the primer due to its 
lack of ability to support XML Schema Data Types  and I refuse 
to ship broken examples to Last Call. Perhaps it could be used in the 
second section of the primer, although it would complicate the example.
If IanD does not get enough cycles free to respond to either adding 
Embedded RDF data-types or changing the examples, we will have no choice 
but to remove it from the primer and reference Embedded RDF in the 
use-case document.

Re RDFa, we have left  the spec open enough so that a GRDDL  result is 
defined in terms of graphs, not RDF/XML, so a GRDDL result can be a RDFa document.

However, we cannot demonstrate any test cases or put anything in the 
primer as of yet concering RDFa except a fairly cursory notice that we 
should in theory be able to work with RDFa unless:

1) There is a GRDDL XSLT transformation that takes RDFa marked up-text and 
produces RDF/XML (much like Embedded RDF currently does) that can be used 
by our test-harness and primer,

or (more work):

2) a RDFa aware parser that produces a graph that can be machine-readable, 
and so used directly in our test harness.

and both options requires

3) RDFa to have a stable syntax.

I do not think option 1) is too much to ask from BenA or someone else in 
the SWBD WG. However, it needs to happen *soon*, as if we do not get such 
a transformation shortly we cannot reference it, as we would like, in the 
use-cases or primer document. Otherwise we will not have RDFa appear in 
the primer or test-cases and will only give it mention in the Use-Case 
scenario.





  On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Ben Adida wrote:

>
>
> Regrets for me for tomorrow, I have too many meetings this week,
> including a bunch tomorrow.
>
>> However, it would be nice if there was a RDFa->RDF/XML GRDDL
>> transformation and it would be even better if BenA could finish his
>> hGRDDL work to make it into a full GRDDL client.
>
> I don't think I will have time to make hGRDDL into a full GRDDL client.
> Upon further thinking, I'm not sure it even makes sense to do that. I'll
> continue my hGRDDL work, of course, but I don't think we should try to
> make it anything too ambitious.
>
>> Lastly,  has the RDFa syntax stabilized?
>
> It's very close.
>
> -Ben
>
>

-- 
 				--harry

 	Harry Halpin
 	Informatics, University of Edinburgh
         http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin

Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2007 23:15:40 UTC