Not GRDDL, but GRDDL-like (was Re: GRDDL and OWL/XML)

On 13 May 2008, at 15:56, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> On 5/13/08 2:54 PM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>
>> The GRDDL Spec says "a *transformation property*, a function from  
>> XPath
>> document nodes to RDF graphs". Yes, that's not in green. We  
>> decided to
>> do rules normatively, and keep the vocabulary informative. We  
>> thought it
>> would be simpler that way by avoiding "conformance vocabulary"  
>> issues -
>> i.e. defining normative conformance in terms of possibly vague words
>> rather than a few clear rules. However, if the rules are unclear, the
>> words should informatively help.
>>
>> I think it's kinda assumed the transformation property "function" can
>> actually execute, although if and when the execution happens is up to
>> local policy. Any other opinions on this?
>
> My opinion: if the transformation property is not executable then  
> we are
> talking about a "GRDDL-like" mechanism, but not GRDDL itself:
>
> "RDFXML is the root node of the XSLT result tree when TXNODE is  
> applied to
> ... "
[snip]

I believe that everyone else agrees that the GRDDL spec does *not*  
require an executable, downloadable specification of the  
transformation at the namespace document.

Looking at that text, it seems that if we apply your hermenutical  
strategy we'd also end up with XSLT required ("XSLT result tree"),  
however, it seems your view is not demanded even by that snippet. We  
can easily speak of a non-computable function "being applied" in  
various mathematical contexts. Also, the prior text makes clear that  
this is a "should":

"""Developers of transformations should make available  
representations in widely-supported formats. XSLT version 1[XSLT1] is  
the format most widely supported by GRDDL-aware agents as of this  
writing, though though XSLT2[XSLT2] deployment is increasing. While  
technically Javascript, C, or virtually any other programming  
language may be used to express transformations for GRDDL, XSLT is  
specifically designed to express XML to XML transformations and has  
some good safety characteristics; XQuery has similar characteristics  
to XSLT, though use of XQuery in GRDDL implementation is less widely  
deployed at the time of this writing."""

So, I believe that my preferred strategy is supported by the spec and  
is GRDDL, not merely GRDDLesque.

This is an important point to me since various pro-GRDDL people in  
the WG have argued that without an executable we have failed  
according to the spec and thus failed our charter requirements. I  
only endorsed the charter (and encouraged others to so endorse) with  
the (weak) GRDDL requirement because I read the above spec text and  
came to, what seems to me, an obvious conclusion.

 From a marketing perspective, it feels like a bait and switch. I  
feel like I did due diligence and now am sandbagged. Proper specs  
*cannot* require people to interview members of the community to  
determine what conforming behavior is. That defeats the point!

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Monday, 19 May 2008 13:23:51 UTC