- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:43:59 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
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. > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 14:44:45 UTC