W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:31:02 -0400
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7016AAEB-E9C7-45A0-A00E-57A58C455C51@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

Maybe I just don't understand what is being proposed by Bijan
  You're talking about different serializations, but I'm talking about  
simple syntax level stuff - think about round tripping - how does my  
tool know the Xinclude was in the document if it was first grabbed by  
an XML handler which did the include (i.e I don't know how the  
document reflects it)
  Meanwhile, if I autotranslate the Xinclude to some other  
serialization (whether it is Turtle or some new thing that grows up  
around the profiles, which I expect may happen)then what do I put in  
the document so it knows that if it translates it to RDF/XML it should  
include the XInclude (and how to do it - unless we're going to  
standardize the detail - because as best I can tell here's multiple  
ways to do the same things in Xinclude (and also to tell one from  
multiple includes)
  It's this latter case I'm worried about - and don't understand at all
  -JH




On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

>
>
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On 15 Sep 2008, at 14:41, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>>> On 15 Sep 2008, at 11:42, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let me try to tease out the various options. Corrections welcome.
>>>>
>>>> 1) (Alan's) We put a *triple* (i.e., change the graph) in.  
>>>> Advantages:
>>>> "works"[1] for all RDF serializations. Disadvantages: Breaks  
>>>> syntactic
>>>> layering; contaminates the graph and the structural model;  
>>>> *requires* a
>>>> bespoke solution (thus precludes using standards like XInclude).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just for my understanding: why would this solution preclude using
>>> XInclude? If there is an extra triple defined in some vocabulary,
>>> wouldn't that be orthogonal to the usage of XInclude?
>>
>> The difference is whether the triple *duplicates* the XInclude  
>> (i.e., an
>> XInclude statement without a corresponding triple would be
>> non-conforming) or is an *additional* mechanism.
>>
>> Obviously, anyone can pop xinclude in, but a conforming OWL RDF/XML
>> parser wouldn't have to recognize it (by our specs).
>>
>> I guess. Getting ugly quickly :(
>>
>
> Ah. I see what you mean. But yes, it is getting ugly... If I'd build  
> an
> RDF environment from scratch, taking a really really up-to-date XML
> parser off the shelf, that would (possibly) include XInclude  
> processing.
> Because it would be done on the XML parser level, the real RDF part
> would see, after parsing, a combined XML Infoset only. Ie, I am not  
> sure
> we can make any statements on conformity of an RDF/XML (or RIF-RDF/XML
> or even OWL/XML) v.a.v. XInclude:-(
>
> If that is true, then I think the triple approach would be an  
> additional
> mechanism.
>
> Yes, it is a bit hairy...
>
> Ivan
>
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>>
>
> -- 
>
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 17:31:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC