Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2008, at 14:41, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>> On 15 Sep 2008, at 11:42, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me try to tease out the various options. Corrections welcome.
>>>
>>> 1) (Alan's) We put a *triple* (i.e., change the graph) in. Advantages:
>>> "works"[1] for all RDF serializations. Disadvantages: Breaks syntactic
>>> layering; contaminates the graph and the structural model; *requires* a
>>> bespoke solution (thus precludes using standards like XInclude).
>>>
>>
>> Just for my understanding: why would this solution preclude using
>> XInclude? If there is an extra triple defined in some vocabulary,
>> wouldn't that be orthogonal to the usage of XInclude?
> 
> The difference is whether the triple *duplicates* the XInclude (i.e., an
> XInclude statement without a corresponding triple would be
> non-conforming) or is an *additional* mechanism.
> 
> Obviously, anyone can pop xinclude in, but a conforming OWL RDF/XML
> parser wouldn't have to recognize it (by our specs).
> 
> I guess. Getting ugly quickly :(
>

Ah. I see what you mean. But yes, it is getting ugly... If I'd build an
RDF environment from scratch, taking a really really up-to-date XML
parser off the shelf, that would (possibly) include XInclude processing.
Because it would be done on the XML parser level, the real RDF part
would see, after parsing, a combined XML Infoset only. Ie, I am not sure
we can make any statements on conformity of an RDF/XML (or RIF-RDF/XML
or even OWL/XML) v.a.v. XInclude:-(

If that is true, then I think the triple approach would be an additional
mechanism.

Yes, it is a bit hairy...

Ivan

> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf