Re: more FPWDs?

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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)

It is easiest if we can leave relative URIs as relative. If we have to 
do major amounts of URI processing then I would advocate XSLT2 which has 
some support.

CURIEs could be an issue :(

I think I did write some code for them, once upon a time; and presumably 
Fabien's RDFa code does something with them too.

> 
>> 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).
> 

Known limitations strike me as OK. We would be doing very well if the 
only limitations are imposed by RDF/XML.

Jeremy