- From: John Madden <john.madden@duke.edu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:30:21 -0500
- To: HCLS HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Xiaoshu et al. Do you have any perspective on the relation of RDF/A proposal to GRDDL, and how the two might relate/interoperate? John On Feb 14, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: > >> But if that's the sole advantage of GRDDL, I don't see it as >> a strong argument in favor of its use. That's why I've always >> interpreted GRDDL as something more, namely an early >> "web-of-trust" standard, where its use entailed some implicit >> contract with the rest of the web regarding semantic intent. > > I think this results from, what I called the split personality of > URI. I am > working on a proteomics resource portal site so I can relate to the > motivation of GRDDL. > > For example, if someone has worked out out a super-blast program > and want to > publish it on the web. We can assign the resource a unique URI, > let's say > it is http://hcls.org/superblast. Now the question is: when > dereference this > URI, what do you expect the server to return? For a human user, you > obviously want to return a HTML so the user can fill the form and > run the > application. But what if it is a software agent? In this case, you > probably want to return an RDF, from which an agent can figure out > what to > do next. Of course, HTTP content negotiation can help here but it > demands a > bit more advanced server-side skills. With GRDDL, on the other > hand, you > just publish two document, one HTML on "http://hcls.org/superblast" > and > another XSLT on an arbitrary URI. It offers a clean solution to > remedy URI's > split personality without asking too much from the author (well, > xslt isn't > that simple though:-)). > > I understand your intension on the "web-of-trust", and the TAG's draft > finding on "Authoritative Metadata"[1] might help you. > > Xiaoshu > > [1]. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html > >
Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 16:30:32 UTC