I'm late to the game, so excuse me if this topic has already been disposed of. Did the WG consider including some standard step definitions for RDF processing? At minimum, an optional p:sparql analog to p:xslt seems reasonable. Beyond that, some convenience definitions for simple graph modifications would enable RDF processing comparable to what is now provided for XML processing. RDF processing steps can easily be defined and implemented by 3rd parties, using the existing framework. But I expect there will be a proliferation of variant definitions that will impede portability of xproc scripts for RDF processing. Perhaps the step definitions for RDF processing could be specified in a profile or module so that existing implementations will not be affected, and future implementations can choose whether to support them. --Paul TysonReceived on Thursday, 14 August 2008 23:41:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:41:07 UTC