- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:53:22 +0100
- To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1141916003.25925.123.camel@cumulustier>
Le jeudi 09 mars 2006 à 14:06 +0000, McBride, Brian a écrit : > 7 GRDDL test cases exploring what happens when the namespace document is > an RDF document. I haven't formalized your test cases to integrate them in the test suite yet; I'm not sure what difference it makes whether the namespace document is served as application/xml or application/rdf+xml; does any spec imply the interpretation should be different? (there is a difference for the fragment identifier handling, but I'm not sure it's relevant in this particular case). With regard to the second aspect of your tests (a dataview:transformation on an RDF root element), I think the GRDDL specification should explicitly say that hitting an RDF/XML representation ends the dereferencing loop - it doesn't at this stage. Another option is to say that a GRDDL implementation should not attempt to incorporate non-Valid RDF statements at any stage in the process (in which case the interpretation is in fact different in the end). I haven't thought fully about case 7 yet; I guess we need to define GRDDL transformations in terms of statements collected in the process of dereferencing the various statements (i.e. whether a transformation can only apply at a certain stage in the processing, or if all the transformations collected during the process should be applied). Interesting question to explore :) Also, at some point, RDF/XML could be integrated into a non-RDF root element; is that still the case? If so, we probably need test cases to deal with that possibility as well. Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2006 14:53:30 UTC