- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:46:08 -0500
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>, public-grddl-comments@w3.org, w3c-xsl-query@w3.org, "Ogbuji, Chimezie" <OGBUJIC@ccf.org>
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 23:07 -0400, Harry Halpin wrote: > Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote: > > Harry, > > > > > >> [ . . . ] > >> However, we cannot prevent additional and optional capabilities from > >> being added to a GRDDL-aware agent in pursuant with a local > >> policy. [ . . . ] > >> > > > > If I'm understanding you correctly, the intent of your suggested change > > is to point out that GRDDL-aware agents can do things that are beyond > > what the GRDDL spec licenses -- such as applying a 3rd party > > transformation -- but if they do then the RDF results are not guaranteed > > to be a Faithful Rendition and for this reason they should not be called > > "GRDDL results". If so, this sounds like a good idea, but I think the > > wording change should be a bit more explicit about this. > > > > So how about adding one more sentence to what you suggested, so that the > > chnage would read: > > [[ > > For example, a GRDDL-aware agent may have a > > security policy that prevents it from accessing GRDDL > > transformations > > located in untrusted domain names, it may be unable to apply > > transformations given in a language it does not support, and it may > > feature additional non-normative capabilities such as allowing > > transformations to be found in schemas not specified at > > the namespace document. Users should be bear in mind that RDF results > > produced using such non-normative capabilities may not represent > > a Faithful Rendition, and therefore may not represent conformant GRDDL > > results. > > ]] > > > That's fine with me. It's inconsistent. Any statement of the form "A GRDDL-aware agent may ..." specifies conforming behavior. To then say that such behavior is not conforming is inconsistent. Rather than "allowing transformations to be found in schemas not specified at the namespace document" it would make more sense to say "allowing namespace documents to be looked up using non-standard mechanism"; e.g. somebody could use a local/custom URN resolver or a catalog or whatever to overlay the public web with a local mapping of URIs to schemas. Then the result is a faithful rendition inasmuch as the author of the source document agrees that the non-standard lookup mechanism gives a reasonable representation of the namespace document. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 14:46:31 UTC