- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:00:45 +0100
- To: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
An afterthought ... A GRDDL transform designer striving after triple-perfection, such as the Amy in David's use case, is likely to also be concerned about what the consumer understands from these triples. For example, if the GRDDL Result is in fact an OWL DL graph, maybe they want the consumer to perform complete OWL DL reasoning, as it was designed for. We could decide to redesign GRDDL to allow the publisher to put such a constraint on the consumer. That would be a mistake. The axis of variability of concern there (what reasoning to perform on an RDF graph) has been explored in depth by other groups, and the current situation works, despite this variability. David's proposed designs are equally mistaken. The axis of variability of concern in these (what preprocessing is performed when reading an XML document) has been explored in depth by other groups, and the current situation works, despite this variability. Jeremy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 12:01:03 UTC