Mark Birbeck wrote:
Hi Ivan,
GRDDL is a necessary hack to allow legacy mark-up to be made
'semantic'. But I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that you
can build a 'semantic web' on such a flaky framework. Which means that
it's not a good idea to design languages on the basis that 'it doesn't
matter what I do, because I can always GRDDL it'.
So, I'm going to save my 'yey' for later. I'm hoping that there will
be some serious coordination on this issue, and anything less is a
missed opportunity.
It will be interesting to see if the two standards organisations can
rise to the challenge.
All the best,
Mark
I disagree with the sentiment:
> I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that you
> can build a 'semantic web' on such a flaky framework.
Clearly, once a particular format for expressing metadata has widespread
adoption, or within an application that uses a particular format
extensively, it is well worth the effort to code up specific rules for
that format, and not rely on a general purpose mechanism like GRDDL
(that is less efficient and introduces some security issues, easily
addressable for any limited set of transforms).
But, equally clearly, while developing a new format and during its
initial deployment a flexible framework, like GRDDL, is very useful.
Also, a framework that has made it through to rec is more useful (and
less 'flaky') than one that hasn't.
So in terms of ODF
a) I think that making their schema GRDDL aware is an easy win, and an
easy way of publishing the semantic intent of their documents
b) this is not a particular wonderful long term plan, and as a developer
of a semantic web framework, with responsibility for XML I/O I would
expect a feature request for specific support for ODF, if it is at all
successful. I would begin to think about addressing this six months
after ODF was stable.
c) GRDDL acts as a working solution, while developers like me allocate
time and effort to do a better implementation
Jeremy
