Re: GRDDL in non-HTML XML - how, exactly?

On Friday, March 25, 2005, 7:53:56 PM, Dan wrote:

DC> On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 16:13 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2005, 6:01:41 AM, Dan wrote:
>> 
>> DC> On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 20:33 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> DC> [...]
>> >> On Wednesday, March 23, 2005, 8:11:33 PM, Dan wrote:
>> >> DC>    xmlns:data-view="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#"
>> >> DC>   
>> >> DC>
>> >>
>> data-view:transformation="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/embeddedRDF.xsl"
>> >> 
>> >> Ok so transformation, not interpreter.
>> 
>> DC> yes... (we changed names in 1.53 of 2004/12/07 23:19:58).
>> 
>> I request that, since the last actual public draft (ie, on the TR page)
>> is dated 13 Apr 2004 that you publish the current draft on the TR page
>> at your earliest convenience and give consideration to a regular three
>> month updating of the TR page with this work in future.

DC> Yes, I should let the SemWeb CG know that there's some updates
DC> that should be published now... or as soon as I can finish
DC> them and sync with Dom. If you don't see an updated /TR/ in
DC> two weeks, please ping me.

Thank you.

DC> As to ongoing regular publication, that's trickier. Priority of
DC> this work ebbs and flows. It would be different if it were squarely
DC> in the middle of the scope of a WG... it's related to some TAG issues,
DC> but it's not owned by the TAG. It's related to the SemWeb BPD WG,
DC> but that WG hasn't decided to publish it as a WD.

OK. So the three month rule doesn't apply, strictly; please do the best
you can.



>> DC> I added several diagrams in 1.62.
>> DC>  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec
>> 
>> DC> And in the process I thought of some better ways to explain
>> DC> things, but I haven't updated the text yet.
>> 
>> DC> Meanwhile, I wonder if the diagrams help?
>> 
>> They do. Another request, please use the HTML object element to give a
>> choice between SVG and PNG directly.

DC> I'd like to, but I tried that and the tools I use to produce/manage
DC> the document didn't cooperate. Mozilla firefox on linux and Mac,
DC> in particular. They showed neither the SVG version nor the PNG
DC> version; just a small square box.

I'm happy to work with you to solve that. Meanwhile, what happens if you
go to, say
http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/#4Concepts.PNGImageTransformation
do you see the diagram?

DC> Are there SVG test materials that track the state of deployment
DC> of this idiom, and/or show exactly how to do it? Taking a quick
DC> look at the (SVG) 1.1 Test Suite
DC>   http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Test/
DC> I don't see one.

Right, the SVG test suite does not exercise this as it requires (X)HTML
functionality as well. The CD testsuite will of course test precisely
this.

In the mean time:

<div class="figure">
  <p><a id="figurexx">
    <object data="svg/figxx.svg"
      type="image/svg+xml"
      height="525" width="640">
        <img src="raster/figxx.png"
          alt="Figure x.x: description here"
          height="525" width="640">
      </object>
    </a>
  </p>
  <p class="Figuretitle">Figure 4.3 — caption here</p>
</div>


>> What is the expected processing if I provide, say, three URIs each of
>> which points to an XSLT? Do you execute the first one that resolves
>> correctly? The first one in a supported language? All of them?

DC> All of them.

>> What is the motivation for a list, here?

DC> A document might belong to several dialects simultaneously.

DC> See the figure example after...

DC> "Note that an XHTML document may conform to a number of dialects
DC> simultaneously and link to more than one decoding algorithm:"

Thanks, I missed that.

So, all of the results apply simultaneously?

>> >>> Other representations may be used by prior agreement of all
>> >>> concerned parties.
>> 
>> Who are 'all concerned parties' in a Web context? Everyone who has
>> access rights to dereference the resource?

DC> Hmm... that's poor phrasing... it should probably say something
DC> like "we expect most consumers to grok XSLT for the forseeable
DC> future, but other formats might become popular over time. Feel free
DC> to use other formats if you expect your audience
DC> will grok them".

Yeah. If you use anything else, be prepared for less interop.

DC> [...]
>> DC> It could be as simple as changing
>> DC>     <rdf:Description>
>> DC> to
>> DC>     <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
>> 
>> DC> so that it would be saying "this document is related
>> DC> by the CoordinateReferenceSystem property to something whose
>> DC> crs:Identifier is...".
>> 
>> OK, that's easy to fix. So, a specified but blank value is different to
>> an unspecified value?

DC> Yes... the blank URI reference "" means "this document" but
DC> an unspecified value just means "something", ala "there exists
DC> something..."

>> If I say rdf:about="foo" does it make it about just the element with ID
>> foo?

DC> Pretty close... "#foo",

Sorry, that was what I meant to type

DC>  more likely... assuming we're willing
DC> to sweep under the rug the difference between referring
DC> to an element and referring to the shape described by that element.


Right (see discussion of secondary resources an stylesheet PIs with
frags)

>> >>  Its supposed to say 'here is a
>> >> coordinate system' and 'here is a projection' and 'this svg file
>> >> represents a map in that coordinate system with that projection'. It
>> >> seems we are missing the RDFese, or the GRDDLese, to make the third
>> >> statement.
>> 
>> DC> Right. RDFese.
>> 
>> OK, good. Sounds easy for me to fix so far. Then these cases can be
>> added to your test case collection.

DC> Cool.

In particular, those examples from SVG 1.1 will turn up again in the
next draft of SVG Tiny 1.2; if they can be fixed meantime to do the
right thing, that fixed version can be in SVG Tiny 1.2.

And in the test collection.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead

Received on Friday, 25 March 2005 21:43:49 UTC