[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Relationship to GRDDL, was: rdf in atom

To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Relationship to GRDDL, was: rdf in atom
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:02:05 +0200
Cc: Story Henry <henry.story@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Pawson <davep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Atom-Protocol Protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>, atom-owl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Beckett Dave <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <09648006-D4F7-4B82-8A81-7CC133A81A20@xxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <4869C7E3.40403@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <7B6F688D-EA7E-4824-9E34-8025436A79C5@xxxxxxxxxxx> <09648006-D4F7-4B82-8A81-7CC133A81A20@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666


Mark Nottingham wrote:

...
WRT using GRDDL or other out-of-band mechanisms -- the overhead ofprocessing GRDDL is IMO not acceptable in some cases, and furthermore,it's again not explicit/self-describing.
...

Not sure I follow. Are you concerned by fetching the transformseparately? By execution time? By the requirement to embed an XSLT engine?

Also I'm not sure what you refer to when you say "notexplicit/self-describing".

In any case it would be interesting to write down the proposed mapping*as* GRDDL; that way, a GRDDL-capable client wouln't even have to knowthis new format to make use of it...


BR, Julian

References:
- rdf in atom
  - From: Dave Pawson
- Re: rdf in atom
  - From: Story Henry
- Re: rdf in atom
  - From: Mark Nottingham

Prev by Date: Re: AtomPub Multipart Open Issues
Next by Date: Re: AtomPub Multipart Open Issues
Previous by thread: Re: rdf in atom
Next by thread: Re: rdf in atom
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread