Re: GRDDL WG liaison

/ Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com> was heard to say:
| is simply a question left to local policy decisions. It occurred to
| me along the way that  'GRDDL-aware agents' could effectively use
| XML Pipelines to describe their processing policies.

Yes, I think that's what I'd suggest.

1. A GRDDL process (sh|c)ould be an XML pipeline.
2. If it is not, then I'd describe it as if some default pipeline
   was evaluated and show where the GRDDL process fits into that
   pipeline.

I think the GRDDL spec should give a normative answer about whether or
not XInclude is performed.

| Just to
| complicate the issue, someone pointed out that the source document
| might in fact be a language variant that had been served from a
| given URI in response to user preference for Spanish, for example.
| In that case, if you pass the URI of the source to an XSLT
| transform, it will more likely retrieve the default variant of
| English, for example. 

It's not immediately obvious to me that the GRDDL process has to do
another retrieval or why, if it does, it can't use the same parameters
as the original request.

| The result would be an RDF restatement of the
| English, not the intended Spanish variant. I wondered whether any
| XML Pipelines components would have offer a way to perform content
| negotiation. Also there was a question related to base URI which I
| did not fully fathom. If any or all of this seems to be something
| that this WG should address.

I think the GRDDL WG could usefully use pipelines, but I don't see
anything that pipelines need to do especially to support GRDDL.

For the content negotiation question, I think Alex had some sort of
"HTTP" component in mind that might help with that. I think that's in
our list of putative components.

We're going to have to start spec'ing some of them out soon, I think.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.