Re: more struggles with POWDER test matierals

Harry Halpin wrote:

> Yes, I concur with Phil.


  This is precisely a problem due to the
> combination of XSLT2, schema include support, and GRDDL it appears,
> *not* a broken test-case for POWDER per se. Note that due to XSLT2 not
> being requested (and I did ask I believe if there was interest), we
> did not have this test-case in the GRDDL Test Cases. However, my
> question for Phil: Is it possible to do this without schema includes
> or XSLT2? I assume the answer is no, but if this is mission-critical
> code, then it would be better to have everything done in a single
> schema without schema includes and using XSLT 1. Of course, I am
> assuming POWDER has excellent reasons for using XSLT2+schema includes.

We need the replace() function in XSLT 2 to convert our white space 
separated lists into regular expressions. In simplified form, something like



<includeregex>[regex_blurb] (| [more_regex_blurb] 

And (our XML expert reliably informs me) you can't do that in XSLT 1.

We use schema references simply because /all/ (valid) POWDER documents 
can, by design, be transformed into what we call POWDER-S but what is 
actually an OWL ontology. It's an important part of the semantics that 
the three different species of POWDER are semantically equivalent and 
including the schema reference is our way of making this explicit and, 
in theory at least, machine discoverable/processable.



>> [1]
>>> * minutes pending; draft in member space:
>>> p.s. tracker, this is re ACTION-262
>> --
>> Phil Archer
>> i-sieve technologies                |      W3C Mobile Web Initiative
>> Making Sense of the Buzz            |

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 15:01:09 UTC