RE: Xinclude word-smithing

> From: Ian Davis [mailto:Ian.Davis@talis.com] 
>  
> > From: David Booth
> > Thus, as GRDDL transformation author, if I cannot control 
> > whether the XInclude is processed, then I cannot be 
> > unambiguous in denoting the intended RDF results.
> 
> But as author of the original document, you are the one choosing which
> GRDDL transformation should be associated with it. Why would 
> you choose to associate a transformation so dependent on 
> XInclude semantics when you have no control over the client 
> processing of the XML document that you are authoring?

It is not a matter of associating the right transformation.  The point
is that the GRDDL transformation author may not have control over the
meaning of the XML document.  It may be a legacy document, with well
defined existing meaning that says that the <myns:quote> element is an
envelope that wraps an XML message that was received, for example.  So
the task of the GRDDL transformation author is to write a transformation
that will produce RDF that accurately reflects the *existing* meaning of
the document -- not to make up new meaning for it or redesign that
document's data model.  For the purpose of the example, we can assume
that the existing meaning is equivalent to the RDF triple:

	myns:myDoc   myns:quote  '<otherNs:whatever>
         <xi:include href="http://example.org/do-not-expand" />
      </otherNs:whatever>'.

So the point is that, given that pre-existing meaning, it is not
*possible* to write a GRDDL transformation that will always produce that
or any other similar triple containing the unexpanded <xiinclude>
element, given the input:

<myns:myDoc . . . >
   <myns:quote>
      <otherNs:whatever>
         <xi:include href="http://example.org/do-not-expand" />
      </otherNx:whatever>
   <myns:quote>
</myns:myDoc>

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Received on Sunday, 17 June 2007 19:51:13 UTC