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