W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > April 2008

XSLT question

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:50:28 +0100
Message-ID: <480C7F84.3060302@icra.org>
To: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>

I guess this is mostly for Kevin but anyone's free to chime in ;-)

I'm trying my best to get all the transformation rules and examples 
ready today. Following Stasinos's suggestion that the way to handle 
unions of IRI sets is simply to allow multiple IRI sets within a DR - so 
simple really - I'm writing this up in the doc.

So if a DR has

<iriset>
   ...
</iriset>

<iriset>
   ...
</iriset>

this gets transformed into

<wdr:iriset rdf:nodeID="iriset_1">
   <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
     <wdr:iriset>
       <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
         ... property restrictions ...
       <owl:intersectionOf>
     </wdr:iriset>
     <wdr:iriset>
       <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
         ... property restrictions ...
       <owl:intersectionOf>
     </wdr:iriset>
   <owl:unionOf>
<wdr:iriset>

Assuming this is right, here's the question - can the XSLT work out 
whether or not the unionOf is necessary so that where there is only one 
IRI set (i.e. 99% of the time) it can drop the unionOf properties? Or 
will we often have a union of 1? The same goes for the IRI sets 
themselves where in many examples we have intersections of a single 
property restriction.

Basically I guess it's a trade-off between processing complexity and 
redundant data. So which wins? (and remember, it's 12st April already...)

Phil.
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 11:51:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:12 GMT