W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2003

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: RDFStyles: alternative to XSLT for RDF

From: Emmanuel Pietriga <epietriga@yahoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:30:18 +0200
Message-ID: <3F97F40A.3060702@yahoo.fr>
To: jon@hackcraft.net
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

jon@hackcraft.net wrote:

>>>If RDF had a cannonical syntax in XML then you could use XMLPath with
>>>RDF and although you would not be querying the RDF model, it would
>>>nevertheless work ok.
>>>
>>>Libby
>>
>>I also fully agree with that. But we don't (yet?) have a cannonical 
>>RDF/XML syntax. So it is not ok right now. And although it is ok from a 
>>pragmatic point of view, it is not from a more conceptual one (in my 
>>opinion). We can probably live with that, but we should be careful as it 
>>might not be in our best interest on the long run.
>>
>>Emmanuel
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that such a canonical syntax would be useful in general (though it 
> might have use in some cases, such as creating a way of signing RDF by allowing 
> RDF -> Canonical RDF/XML -> Canonical XML -> Digest).
> 
> XPath can be used with RDF/XML that is produced by an application in a 
> consistent manner, in particular XML that is designed to be parsed by RDF/XML 
> parsers but which do not necessarily only operate in this manner. An example 
> being RSS1.0.
> 
I know it is possible, and in some way I also think it is convenient as 
it makes it possible to use existing and well-known tools (XPath/XSLT) 
to process RDF, provided the above-mentioned constraints are met (output 
consistency, or canonical representation).

What I am saying is that the idea of manipulating an RDF model through a 
representation of it as an XML tree is flawed *in the general case*. 
There are always going to be use cases where it is going to be fast, 
convenient and safe. But I don't think it is a good way of considering 
the whole problem of RDF model manipulation/transformation. It would be 
better to have a true RDFPath language that addresses the RDF graph 
structure directly, not its XML tree-based representation.

Emmanuel


> Personally I think that this is going to see more use, as a custom application 
> might be able to deal with its "own" XML document type more efficiently than a 
> general RDF tool, and there might be a desire to allow both to happen (one 
> for "local" use one for greater interoperability).
> 
> Jon Hanna
> 


-- 
Emmanuel Pietriga (epietriga@nuxeo.com)
tel (mobile): +33 6 88 51 94 98
http://claribole.net
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 11:29:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT