- From: Smith, Kevin, VF-Group <Kevin.Smith@vodafone.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:55:36 +0200
- To: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>
Hi Phil, Spookily I'm working on the XSLT now, and looking at iriset...yes, XSLT can count the irisets being passed in and only insert unionof if there are >1. Cheers Kevin -----Original Message----- From: public-powderwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-powderwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Archer Sent: 21 April 2008 12:50 To: Public POWDER Subject: XSLT question I guess this is mostly for Kevin but anyone's free to chime in ;-) I'm trying my best to get all the transformation rules and examples ready today. Following Stasinos's suggestion that the way to handle unions of IRI sets is simply to allow multiple IRI sets within a DR - so simple really - I'm writing this up in the doc. So if a DR has <iriset> ... </iriset> <iriset> ... </iriset> this gets transformed into <wdr:iriset rdf:nodeID="iriset_1"> <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> <wdr:iriset> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> ... property restrictions ... <owl:intersectionOf> </wdr:iriset> <wdr:iriset> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> ... property restrictions ... <owl:intersectionOf> </wdr:iriset> <owl:unionOf> <wdr:iriset> Assuming this is right, here's the question - can the XSLT work out whether or not the unionOf is necessary so that where there is only one IRI set (i.e. 99% of the time) it can drop the unionOf properties? Or will we often have a union of 1? The same goes for the IRI sets themselves where in many examples we have intersections of a single property restriction. Basically I guess it's a trade-off between processing complexity and redundant data. So which wins? (and remember, it's 12st April already...) Phil.
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 11:56:22 UTC