Re: more FPWDs?

Inter-op would argue for an XSLT 1.0 transform that probably can be 
done, but it may be easier to have an XSLT 2.0 transform.

I tend to agree with Bijan's judgement that in principle this is 
possible (although I would expect corner cases which don't work, e.g. a 
property http://example.org/000)

Inevitably there will some limitations, and some explaining to do.
Documented limitations is OK. Perfection can be the enemy of the good.

Jeremy

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> On 27 Feb 2008, at 14:23, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [snip]
>> Do we know whether a semantics-preserving transform for OWL ontologies
>> from OWL/XML to RDF/XML is within the capabilities of GRDDL?
> 
> I think it's reasonable to think there is. GRDDL, as I understand it, 
> merely indicates the transform but doesn't prescribe the formalism (or 
> program) that does the transform. Thus, in principle you could describe 
> the transform arbitrarily. Canonically (and most usefully) however, it 
> would be better to have an XSLT sheet. That clearly can do the transform.
> 
>> If we advertise that the transform is coming and then fail to produce it
>> we will most likely have quite a bit of explaining to do.
> 
> I don't think it's particularly difficult since the OWL/XML wouldn't 
> require pulling pieces from all over. You could write the templates 
> almost directly off the reverse translation rules. I, in fact, started 
> this back in march but other things took over.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
>