RE: Arbitrary XML documents as custom (was Xinclude word-smithing)

Use case #9 is talking about the use of HTTP header linking.  That is
illustrating a totally different problem, and it is misleading to
suggest that it has anything to do with the ambiguity problem.  Use case
#9 is illustrating the case where the XML document has no other means of
*associating* a GRDDL transformation with the XML document.  It is not
about the case where, given that the XML document *has* a means of
associating a GRDDL transformation, it is impossible for the GRDDL
transformation author to be unambiguous about the desired RDF result.
The latter is what I am concerned about.


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:50 AM
> To: Ian Davis
> Cc: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston); GRDDL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Arbitrary XML documents as custom (was Xinclude 
> word-smithing)
> 
> 
> I believe this requirement (at least partially) is in the use cases 
> document:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-grddl-scenarios-20070406/#heade
r_use_case
> 
> However, the first para says:
> [[
> This use-case uses a feature that is not, and will not be, 
> included in 
> the GRDDL Working Draft. It should be addressable in the future using 
> the mechanims described in the HTTP Header Linking Draft  
> once that is accepted by the IETF as an RFC.
> ]]

Th
> 
> Text that HP agreed to (or maybe even proposed) - via me.
> 
> I believe we had WG consensus that while this would have been nice, 
> given the timing etc., we needed to accept that we could not 
> meet this 
> requirement.
> 
> I think that, before I joined the WG, this evolved from an original 
> design possibility of allowing third party annotations to specify 
> transforms. I don't claim to understand the rationale for 
> dropping that, 
> but it seems to make sense in terms of the chain of 
> justifications, and 
> chain of responsibility.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> Ian Davis wrote:
> > David,
> > 
> > You wrote:
> > 
> >> A key application of GRDDL that I am concerned about is where 
> >> GRDDL is used to treat arbitrary XML documents as custom 
> >> serializations of RDF.
> > 
> > Can you elaborate on why you believe GRDDL should support 
> "arbitrary"
> > XML documents as custom serializations of RDF?
> > 
> > My view is that GRDDL can support some, carefully constructed, XML
> > dialects as custom serialisations, but certainly not 
> arbitrary ones. You
> > seem to be suggesting that GRDDL should support any XML 
> dialect being a
> > serialisation of the entire RDF model.
> > 
> > Ian
> > --
> >  
> > Find out more about Talis at  www.talis.com
> > Shared InnovationTM
> > 
> >  
> > Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email 
> may not be those of Talis Information Ltd. The content of 
> this email message and any files that may be attached are 
> confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient 
> only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please 
> return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of 
> this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
> >  
> >  
> > Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of 
> companies and is registered in England No 3638278 with its 
> registered office at Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, 
> Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Hewlett-Packard Limited
> registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
> Registered No: 690597 England
> 
>

Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 18:19:36 UTC