What could be the drawback of an intermediate reified RDF sy

• From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
• Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:50:34 +0200
• To: " - *connolly@w3.org" <connolly@w3.org>
• Cc: " - *www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <0006800031127204000002L042*@MHS>

Hi Dan,

What could be the drawback of using an XSLT based rdfp
transformation (such as yours) producing reified RDF
syntax? I mean (nested) expressions using nothing else but
rdf:Statement (with optional ID attribute), rdf:subject,
rdf:predicate and rdf:object elements. For examples check
the http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/ stuff.
This is not to say that the rest of RDF(S) can not be
used (as input), but we are talking here about an
intermediatate thing which is food for machines.
That format is invariant after such tranformation
(i.e. producing the same graph). It's of course lenghty
and inconvenient for humans, but we have XSLT "glasses"
and (possibly) transparent compression.

Best regards,
Jos De Roo --- AGFA

Received on Saturday, 16 September 2000 07:51:19 UTC