- From: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:53:53 -0700
- To: Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch
- CC: www-ws@w3.org
Joachim - Thanks (belatedly) for these comments. I realize Massimo has already responded to selected points, but I'd like to add one brief comment ... Joachim.Peer@unisg.ch wrote: > dear DAML-S researchers, > > i would like to compile a brief comparison of the various existing > approaches for mapping between DAML+OIL(OWL) and XML, and of course i am > very interested to learn about the mapping concept envisioned for DAML-S > 0.9 > > Does there exist an example/explanation of the "xsltTransformation" > property, or is this work in progress? > To discuss the various problems (and solutions) of the XSLT based mapping, > I have written a (very simple) example, a mapping of a DAML+OIL "purchase > order" to some XML represention. > > The example is available online: > http://sws.mcm.unisg.ch/mapping/po.daml (the DAML+OIL ontology; the XML > schema is http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#po.xsd) > http://sws.mcm.unisg.ch/mapping/po.xml (an instance of the XML schema) > http://sws.mcm.unisg.ch/mapping/po_instance.rdf (an instance of the > DAML+OIL ontology) > http://sws.mcm.unisg.ch/mapping/PO-daml2xml.xsl (the XSL stylesheet which > maps from ONE RDF/XML representation to XML) > > Of course i do not know if this is compatible with the current ideas > regarding the "xsltTransformation" property ;-) > > However, the example illustrates some open issues/some of the questions i > currently have: > > * a DAML+OIL concept can have multiple RDF/XML representations => Q: Do > you plan to impose some guidelines which restrict the use of certain RFD > abbrev. syntaxes, or do you think it's the responsibility of the softare > agents, to figure out how _exactly_ the mapping should be carried out , > e.g. to figure out which RDF/XML style is used, etc. It's a good point. We've only talked about this a little in the DAML-S Coalition. The consensus seems to be that it's not practical to expect an XSLT transformation to handle *any* possible XML representation of the relevant DAML+OIL concepts - so it probably would be useful to impose some guidelines. However, no recommendation is currently being made about this. One possible set of guidelines would be the OWL XML presentation syntax: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/att-0295/01-OWL-XML-Schemas.html but I'm not entirely clear yet whether this is sufficiently restrictive to address the problem. Regards, David Martin > > * XSLT Transformations are not bi-directional => Q: will the stylesheets > for inputProperties look different than those for outputProperties? > > thanks in advance, > joachim > > Joachim Peer > Research Assistant > MCM Institute, University of St. Gallen > Blumenbergplatz 9, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland > Phone: ++41 (0) 71 224 3441, Fax: ++41 (0) 71 224 2771
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 01:54:03 UTC