W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > November 2006

Issue-base-param: do we need the parameter?

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:31:07 -0000
Message-ID: <86FE9B2B91ADD04095335314BE6906E8A2E73E@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "GRDDL Working Group" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

I've been taking a look at issue

  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#issue-base-param

With a view to coming up with a test case.  Caveat: I'm a bit out of my
depth with the sublties of XSLT versions etc.  Figured I should check my
understanding before proceeding.

1.  I'm wondering whether the primary case of wanting to refer to the
base URI in the output graph is covered because ...

Looking at glean_title.xsl

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/td/glean_title.xsl

I see

  <rdf:Description rdf:about="">

Where the same document reference ("") in the template turns into a
reference to the source document in the graph.  (I'm gonna wonder about
that a bit more if I get the time or energy.)  So presumably

  <rdf:Description rdf:about="foo.bar">

Will be a reference to foo.bar relative to the base URI of the source
document and 

  <rdf:Description rdf:about=".">

Will be a reference to the resource identified by the base URI of the
source document.

So is that sufficient for now, I wonder, noting that with XSLT 2 there
is an accessor to get at the baseURI of a node

  http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/#dm-base-uri


What this wouldn't let us do in XSLT <2 would be get the baseURI and
munge it in the style sheet, e.g. get the URI, extract the protocol
part, and create a triple that said that resource is accessable by that
protocol.

I could live without that and wait for xslt 2.  Wondered what others
thought.

Brian
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 11:31:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:46 GMT