- From: Josh Sled <jsled@asynchronous.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:25:36 -0500
- To: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 03:52, Phil Dawes wrote: > I've written a script (to test the idea) that does pretty-much the > same translation - if you're interested I'll stick it on the web > somewhere when I get to work. Nice. It looks like you go strictly to blank nodes, and have the "element = property" and "non-leaf-elements are blank-nodes" heuristic. > N.B. I think it'd also need to handle ordered collections to be > generically useful (since xml is implicitly ordered). Yeah, it seems like the pain is to deal with: <foo> <barProp>bar</> <bazProp>baz</> <items>item1</> <items>item2</> </foo> Since you don't want to have to tell people they need to insert another level... What about... <foo is:aListOf="items"> <!-- ... --> </> ? Which, given the content above, becomes: [ :foo [ :barProp "bar"; :bazProp "baz" ; :items ( "item1" "item2" ) ] ]. With namespace/qname handling as per: <eg:foo is:aListOf="⪚items"> <!-- ... --> </> While I'm writing this out... another pain is striping and typing. I've been thinking about something like... <eg:foo is:a="⪚Foo" /> ...with an alternative being... <eg:foo is:a="⪚Foo"> <is:a>&eg2;Bar</is:a> </> ... with the motivation that anything needing to represent _two_ rdf:types can deal with the weirdness the above presents. Also, I guess you adopt `is:about="..."` for subjects, and `is:at` for resource-objects. Oh yeah, and there's no option to put anything in attributes. It's all in elements, except as per above. Thoughts? ...jsled -- http://asynchronous.org/ - `a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b}`
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2005 15:23:50 UTC