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

RE: XSLT question

From: Smith, Kevin, VF-Group <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:55:36 +0200
Message-ID: <37AC1116121D3F43B9A67CB16E2E79FF226FE6@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Hi Phil,

Spookily I'm working on the XSLT now, and looking at iriset...yes, XSLT
can count the irisets being passed in and only insert unionof if there
are >1.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer
Sent: 21 April 2008 12:50
To: Public POWDER
Subject: XSLT question

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



this gets transformed into

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

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

Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 11:56:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:03 UTC