Re: [office-metadata] Fw: News Release: W3C Completes Bridge BetweenHTML/Microformats and Semantic Web with GRDDL

[Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM>]

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> I guess I was thinking along the lines of spreadsheet data.  Users 
> commonly put in data tables, a few columns of data with labels as 
> headers.  These may start in row 1, or anywhere.  If another 
> application wants to operate on that data in the document, they really 
> don't know where to start. 
> What range do they look for?  What are the data types of the columns? 
>  It isn't really self-describing because the column headers are really 
> not headers in any formal sense.  They are just cells containing 
> labels.  It looks nice to the eye, but it really isn't formally 
> structured.
>
>
> So what would you do if you wanted to layer some structure on to the 
> data?  I guess you could annotate with RDF metadata and say things 
> about the range and the headers.  But another way might be to define 
> via GRDDL a way to extract RDF from the spreadsheet.  So not really 
> metadata, but RDF to describe the actually data of the sheet.  This 
> could be powerful.
The structure you described in your example should be described by RDF, 
from my understanding GRDDL does not add any structure. GRDDL only shows 
a way how to extract the RDF graph from a XML file by providing an 
algorithm (usually XSLT stylesheet).

The RDF graph of an ODF document should be the same in the end with or 
without GRDDL.
Or did I misunderstand your scenario?
>
> But I agree that this doesn't necessarily intersect with our metadata 
> work.  Both use RDF, but for different purposes.
>
> -Rob
Bests,
Svante
>
> ___________________________
>
> Rob Weir
> Software Architect
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Software Group
>
> email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
> phone: 1-978-399-7122
> blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/
>
> Svante.Schubert@Sun.COM wrote on 09/12/2007 03:18:11 PM:
>
> > Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> > > robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Does this mean anything for us?  
> > >
> > > It might. It would allow, for example, someone to include some custom
> > > XML in an ODF package, but include the GRDDL logic to convert it 
> to RDF.
> > >
> > > I'm not really sure of the practical use case for that, but I imagine
> > > someone may find one.
> > >
> > GRDDL is a framework to extract RDF from plain XML by providing an
> > algorithm (usually a reference to a XSLT stylesheet).
> > We in ODF 1.2 offer more than a framework for plain XML, we offer a
> > framework for package formats using XML files.
> >
> > Instead of a GRDDL algorithm we rely on a fixed algorithm by in general
> > annotating the relevant XML resources (element nodes) by xml:id
> > attributes and using one metadata manifest to relate xml:ids with IRIs
> > and to describe related RDF files of the package.
> >
> > Aside of this package metadata mechanism we define typical ODF 
> resources
> > (e.g. odf:ContentFile) and in content metadata of an ODF file (e.g.
> > m:about, m:property).
> > Making this ODF in content metadata extractable using GRDDL and XSLT
> > seems possible, but would require the interpretation of the manifest 
> and
> > providing the XSLT stylesheet.
> >
> > Not sure if it is worth the effort, as I doubt that a common GRDDL 
> agent
> > would even unzip an ODF document at all.
> > I would further assume GRDDL would drop some of our nice features as 
> RDF
> > named graphs like we currently have for each RDF file.
> >
> > Rather than looking on agents, I am more focused on the Office 
> Extension
> > developer, which might rely on some XSLT library as RDF TWIG when
> > working with ODF metadata using XSLT. ;-)
> >
> > regards,
> > Svante (on vacation but could not resist)
> >
> > [1] http://rdftwig.sourceforge.net/paper/index.html