- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:06:11 -0700
- To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: ogbujic@ccf.org, public-grddl-wg@w3.org
Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: >> From: Chimezie Ogbuji [mailto:ogbujic@ccf.org] >> . . . >> I noticed there is a simultaneous TAG thread [1] on this very topic. >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007May/0063.html > > Yes, that message from John Cowen is an excellent illustration of the > fact that it only reliably makes sense to talk about the semantics > (read: "GRDDL results") of a *representation* -- not an information > resource. I made a relevant change the GRDDL spec some months ago... --- revision 1.188 date: 2007/01/24 15:25:46; author: connolly; state: Exp; lines: +115 -81 * domain of grddl:transformation is now an XPath root node, rather than an information resource, to fix the bug with multiple representations that BrianM reported 2006-11-15. grddl:txlink goes away as a result. --- But for grdd:result itself, the rule concludes things about the resource based on its representation... [[ 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. ]] -- http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#rule_result -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 18:06:29 UTC