- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 01:28:10 -0400
- To: <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>
> . . .
> 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.
By "out of scope" I hope you mean "not currently covered by the
GRDDL draft" rather than "out of scope for the GRDDL charter".
Having checked the charter, I *do* think it is very much in scope.
> . . .
> 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.
> . . .
Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Thanks. And this version is
much preferable to the other version that starts with
". . . log:uri . . . ", because as I pointed out, the IR that
produced the representation may not have a URI.
David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 05:28:33 UTC