Going off-topic for public-html. -public-html +www-archive
On Aug 6, 2008, at 14:28, Julian Reschke wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
...
You do this:
- Document the mapping between the host language and RDF, do not
touch the host language, and have transformers for each of the
languages, triggered by contenttype/doctype/xmlnamespace.
That doesn't scale.
It scales for the well-known Web markup languages: (X)HTML and SVG
(and perhaps MathML and Atom). It also scales to common image and
timed media formats that XSLT can't handle.
No, it doesn't even scale for them. For instance, in the HTML I
produce I could specific conventions (classnames, link relations,
whatever) to embed metadata. A generic transformer for HTML wouldn't
be able to handle that.
If you use conventions specific to your site, you are venturing
outside the well-known part. If you serve a program that transforms
your specific syntax to RDF, you move the point where a well-known
vocabulary is needed to the RDF layer, but concrete common ground with
the information consumer has to come somewhere. However, making the
consumer run a foreign XSLT program has the scalability problem of
crawlers being able to execute programs in large quantities. With
Validator.nu, the main scalability program seems to be the ability to
execute Schematron, which is implemented by compiling the Schematron
schema into XSLT and running the XSLT program.
Moreover, for class-based syntaxes, a transformer that contains its
executable parts (whether in XSLT or in another programming language)
only needs to cover the kind of syntax that a given application is
interested in consuming. If I'm looking for hCard data and my
application understands RDF vCard, I only need a transformation from
hCard to RDF vCard. I don't need a solution that scales to all
microformats.
It doesn't work with my homegrown vocabulary/markup style
(remember: distributed extensibility).
If you are serving a document in your vocabulary and a program that
makes sense of it, are you really communicating with others by
sending semantic markup or are you communicating by sending
programs? If you made your markup empty and embedded all the data
in the transformation program, would the recipient know any
difference?
I don't see how that is relevant. What's relevant is what the
recipient gets. And of course the intent of GRDDL is to have a
single transform for a vocabulary, and to reuse that transform for
each instance document. You could use it in a different way, but who
cares?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Jul/0164.html
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
