W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2003

RE: ANNOUNCEMENT: RDFStyles: alternative to XSLT for RDF

From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:50:00 +0100 (BST)
To: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0310211845150.26966@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

heh, I wasn't critising XSLT, so much as bemoaning the lack of a
canonical syntax for RDF that could be syntactically processed by XSLT,
regardless of the semantics.

Water under the bridge now; although I do think that it at least worth a
try combining an RDFPath-like RDF query language and XSLT and XQuery (as
Treehugger does), as an experiment to see if this makes RDF processing
more palatable to people who use these technologies. Although RDF
toolkits are getting easier and easier to use in any case, so this
might be unnecessary.


On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:

> Libby Miller wrote:
> >It can,
> Glad we got that straight!
> >but not usually usefully because of the syntactic variations RDF
> >can use to express the same graph.
> These syntactic variations are RDF's problem, not XSLT's, any more than
> rendering of SVG or XForms are XSLT's problem. In other words, the root
> cause of the sadness you describe is at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/, not at http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt.
> Don't get me wrong, I love RDF in general, and I think the whole idea of
> RDFStyles is great, because if RDF/XML syntax is messy enough that existing
> XML tools can't do much with it, then it looks like new tools are necessary,
> but when I see how bloated the XSLT 2.0 spec has gotten, I'd rather see
> complaints about what XSLT can or ought to be able to do expressed more
> accurately than "XSLT does not work with RDF."
> Bob
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 13:53:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:45 UTC