- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 13:24:38 -0800
- To: caro@Adobe.COM
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Nice classification! The trouble is that currently 1-4 exist only on our minds rather than in a spec, not even in an inofficial one. It seems to me that 2 and 3 are fairly straight forward, but I don't have a clear view on 1 and 4. What should be canonical RDF? And how would it differ from simplified RDF? Another issue that we need to consider is a way to distinguish alternative syntaxes in order to transparently support multiple serializations of RDF (assuming for simplicity that they are all XML-based). XSLT for transformations between syntaxes seems worth giving it a try. Sergey "Perry A. Caro" wrote: > > Has anyone toyed with applying XSLT transformations to RDF to generate > alternative representations? For example, the simplified "Just The > N-tuples" syntax proposed by Sergey, et al? > > It occurred to me that one could get several useful products by applying > XSLT to RDF: > > 1) Canonical RDF > 2) Trivial RDF (Just The N-Tuples) > 3) Simplified RDF (backward compatible to RDFMS 1.0) > 4) XML Schema compatible intermediate form of RDF > > A complete, open and robust XSLT template for transforming RDFMS 1.0 into > "Just The N-tuples" could be the basis for an RDF front-end that we could > all use. There's at least an order of magnitude more activity around > developing XSLT tools over RDF tools, why not leverage this activity? > > Perry
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2000 16:16:00 UTC