- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:47:03 -0500
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, ogbujic@ccf.org, "Clark, John" <CLARKJ2@ccf.org>
On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 17:46 -0400, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > To satisfactorily address all of issue-dbooth-3 except the absence of a > definition of "complete GRDDL results", John Clark, Chimezie Ogbuji and > David Booth propose the following normative change. Of course > corresponding changes to the non-normative text would also be needed, > and David is willing to do or help with those as the WG desires. > > > In http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_result > [[ > If an information resource([WEBARCH], section 2.2) IR is represented by > an XML document with an XPath root node R, and R has a GRDDL > transformation with a transformation property TP, and TP applied to R > gives an RDF Graph[RDFC04] G, then G is a GRDDL result of IR. > ]] > change: "XML document" to "XML document D" > and: "TP applied to R" to "TP applied to D" > > > Observations: > > - This change would permit the GRDDL transformation to control *all* > XML document processing, thus permitting the transformation author to be > unambiguous (if desired) about the RDF graph that is intended. > > - It is simple change for GRDDL implementations. > > - It would not require any test case changes. Odd; your first observation means that at least one test changes: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/grddl-tests#xinclude And hence... > - It does not require re-opening faithful-infoset. This change is analogous to constraining the XPath root node R to correspond to the representation without any XInclude or other fiddling; i.e. "The source document infoset is what you get by parsing the bytes that come over the wire" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Dec/0068.html The WG considered this position and decided against it. As editor, I'm bound by that decision, so I can't make this change unless/until the issue is re-considered. I see no new information that suggests re-considering the WG decision. of 2007-06-06 http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-faithful-infoset http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jun/att-0046/SV_MEETING_TITLE_--_6_Jun_2007.htm#item04 > - It would still enable transformation authors to use XProc if desired > when XProc is finished. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 22:47:07 UTC