Please drop my action to respond to issue-dbooth9a

With regret, I'm going to have to ask that my action to respond to David
Booth's comment regarding issue-dbooth9a be dropped.  I simply do not
have the appropriate forum to properly address his comments (especially
not in public-grddl-comments).  For the purpose of the WG, I'd like to
emphasize where the problem lies (as I see it) so we can at least have
the opportunity to determine what the "WG consensus" is in this regard.

This is substantive conversation that is my opinion only and driven by
Dave's concerns about Information Resources and their Representations -
not a request to reopen any old issue or start a new one.  If this is
out of order, then 1) ignore this email and 2) I'd have to ask that I am
not assigned any more actions to respond to outstanding commentary (no
offense to Jeremy or anyone, I just feel like my hands are tied
somewhat).  

>From my interpretation of http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/#rule_result it
does seem to me that the XML messaging scenario is out of scope of GRDDL
as currently defined.  Once again it is easier for me to follow the
explicit rules than to attempt to go spec hunting (I certainly hope that
this is not a case where the informative rule is in conflict with the
normative statement):

{ ?IR log:uri [ fn:doc ?R ].
  ?R grddl:transformation [ grddl:transformationProperty ?TP ].
  ?R ?TP ?G. } => { ?IR grddl:result ?G }.

The consequent of the rule above clearly associates the GRDDL result
with ?IR instead of ?R (the relationship between ?IR and ?R - the
dereferencing operation - is delegated to the XPath 2.0 doc function:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#fn_doc). So, we have a functional
mapping from IR to R and there is no reason why the rule cannot be
expressed (instead as):

{ ?IR log:uri [ fn:doc ?R ].
  ?R grddl:transformation [ grddl:transformationProperty ?TP ].
  ?R ?TP ?G. } => { ?R grddl:result ?G }.

This would correspond to a rewording of the normative (human-readable)
text to:

[[
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 R.
                                                          ^
                                                          |
]]

The alternative (and more substantive) change is to not speak of
Information Resources *at all*.  And have the rule start with:

{ 
  ?R grddl:transformation [ grddl:transformationProperty ?TP ].
  ?R ?TP ?G. } => { ?R grddl:result ?G }.


And have the text replaced with:

[[
If we have an XML document [XML] representation 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 R.
]]

I believe these are the kinds of changes that David was hinting at (but
didn't outline explicitly).  However, the second edit is definitely a
substantive edit and (perhaps?) moves GRDDL from the realm of Web
Architecture into XML syntax solely.  The first might not be (I'd like
to hear other opinions on this).  This is why I asked (in today's
teleconference) if our charter is relevant here.  

-- 
Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org


===================================




Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top 3 hospitals in
America by U.S.News & World Report. Visit us online at
http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of
our services, staff and locations.


Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.

Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 19:23:28 UTC