- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:39:11 +0100 (BST)
- To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[ever-growing cc list snipped] On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Dave Beckett wrote: > I have been discussing some of this with Jeremy and my current > thoughts is an approach something like this. Note this is not meant > to be the way that parsers are written, but the way that a formal > mapping RDF/XML->N-Triples can be defined that can be automatically > tested. > > 1) Validate the RDF/XML 1.0 (revised) syntax using existing > XML schema language(s). > > 2) Remove abbreviated syntax forms > > This means getting rid of typedNodes, property attributes etc. > > I suggested to Jeremy to use XSLT and I think he has tried since he > has named this the "Snail" approach, for its incredible > performance. DanC pointed out he had done some work in this > area at: http://www.w3.org/2001/04rs22/ > > 3) Validate the final form using a more strict schema definition as > suggested by Henry Thompson and James Clark in messages linked > above. Steps 2 and 3 are slightly worrying; they mean adding an extra transformation step that has to be checked/eyeballed/proven correct. OTOH, the more I look at the existing RDF/XML syntax, the more an incremental, piecemeal approach to validation and transformation appeals. [Aside: I was fairly sure that there was something in RDF/XML that can't be expressed using the longhand form. The only thing I can think of is covered by http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/error001.rdf ...any others?] > 4) Use the final 'canonical' RDF/XML 1.0 to map into N-Triples using > an XSLT transform to text/plain > > It would be something like sequences of > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://subject/"> > <foo:property>object</foo:property> > </rdf:Description> > > Maybe. > > Of course this couldn't represent all legal rdf models, but will > be able to do all models that RDF/XML 1.0 syntax can do. Mutter > ID, BagID, aboutEach ... > > The alternative to the last step is to invent a real canonical form, > most likely a straight XML-ising of N-Triples. I'd like to avoid > inventing another language unless absolutely necessary. Hear, hear. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk perl -e 's?ck?t??print:perl==pants if $_="Just Another Perl Hacker\n"'
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 06:40:51 UTC