W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rax@w3.org > July 2016

Re: Transforming RDF into XML (alternative using ShEx)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:43:22 +0200
Cc: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>, public-rax@w3.org
Message-Id: <E0F3A6A5-F9B0-4A08-B8F9-260CCB6BDDC5@w3.org>
To: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>

> Am 09.07.2016 um 20:16 schrieb Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>:
> 
> On Sat, 2016-07-09 at 11:52 +0200, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> Thanks, Jose. From the call yesterday we came up with a rough
>> classification of how to structure our discussion
>> 
>> 1) functionality needed: convert XML to RDF, or the other way round
>> 2) way to implement it: with standard technologies (e.g. XSLT on the
>> XML side) or with enhancements
> 
> The RDF that you want to end up with from any given XML document may
> vary greatly depending on your purpose: XML generally represents
> information, not knowledge, and you can extract an unbounded set of
> knowledge from a given piece of information.
> 
> Examples include "make a list of every natural-language word in the XML
> document, together with how many times it occurs" or "extract the names
> of people from this document, based on interpreting the content of
> "person" elements as people's names."
> 
> So I don't see that this can be standarized usefully.


Nobody in the CG so far asked for standardization … read the description 
https://www.w3.org/community/rax/ <https://www.w3.org/community/rax/>
the goal is to classify existing practices and tools. People are already doing 1-4, without knowing drawbacks and benefits of approaches and tools. The goal for now is to document what already is around.


> 
>>  
> [...]
>> Now, if people want to stay with 2), they can follow some potential
>> best practice; e.g.  how to store RDF output, so that it can be
>> processed with standard XML tools. See the mail from Martynas:
>> 
>> [
>> We use however a canonical "flat" RDF/XML layout, in which
>> <rdf:Description>s are not nested (default output by Jena writer). By
>> limiting RDF/XML to such layout, and using the key() function to
>> lookup descriptions etc., the transformation becomes quite
>> manageable.
>> ]
> 
> Yes. RDF/XML seems to be the result of some really creative people
> trying to make the worst XML vocabulary they can imagine. A good clue
> is that if you design an XML format yourself and define more than one
> XML namespace you're probably doing something wrong. I always hoped
> Jeremy Carroll's RDF-in-XML work would get wider adoption than it did.
> 
> A simple XML vocabulary that doesn't let RDF introduce new namespaces
> or element names - e.g. an n3.xml or turtle.xml - would be a big help.
> 
>>> mapping XML of dictionary data to RDF
> 
> This is always a fabulous example, especially when you add the ontology
> matching problem of identifying corresponding lemmata across languages.


The ontolex lemon model allows to do that, see the zip code <> postleitzahl example at
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#translation-as-a-relation-between-lexical-senses <https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/#translation-as-a-relation-between-lexical-senses>


> peope have been doing it for years, of course, but you have to have a
> clearly-defined purpose first, since the mappings aren't 1:1 and
> there's considerable subjectivity involved.

Indeed.

- Felix

> 
> Liam
> 
> -- 
> Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> 
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2016 09:43:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 10 July 2016 09:43:34 UTC