- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:05:17 +0000
- To: david.booth@hp.com, "public-grddl-wg@w3.org" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
David, I suspect it would be helpful to the POWDER WG if we could agree what we agree on, and what we disagree on. Here is a straw man: We agree: - the POWDER format should be heavily constrained, to allow easy processing of operational semantics by an XML app - the POWDER format should not be unconstrained RDF/XML - the full formal meaning of a POWDER document should most easily be accessed by use of GRDDL - to permit adding arbitrary metadata, some part of a POWDER document should be defined in terms of http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#start (most probably one of nodeElement or nodeElementList) - the meaning of any RDF/XML included in the POWDER document should be consistent with the GRDDL result. We disagree: - whether a powder document as a whole should match the nodeElement construction of RDF/XML) - whether the powder document should be served as RDF/XML or as XML. We have not yet finish understanding the differences in opinion concerning entailment relationships. In my view the agreements above are much more extensive and important than the disagreements. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 19:05:57 UTC