Re: more FPWDs?

On 27 Feb 2008, at 14:43, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 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.

Thinking about it, the trickiest bit will be dealing with URIs and  
CURIEs. Having to write a relative URI resolver will be annoying (but  
it's been done...there are RDF/XML parsers in XSLT)

> 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)
[snip]

Well, this is a case where the RDF/XML can't rep it anyway, so that's  
fine (or, rather, an instance of a known limitation of the target  
format).

Cheers,
Bijan.