Have you had any more luck with this part of the mapping? Is this a
problem with the current Atom syntax if not?
Henry Story
On 28 Jan 2005, at 22:27, David Powell wrote:
I think it
handles everything except for xml:lang - I'm not sure what's happening
with xml:lang at the moment - but it should
On 30 Jan 2005, at 02:31, David Powell wrote:
[snip]
I meant, although:
XML --[XSLT]-- RDF/XML --[RDF/XML-parser]-- RDF-model
...is an ok reference implementation for demonstrating an RDF mapping,
the mapping should be defined in prose, because:
XML --[SAX]-- RDF-model
...would be a lot more
Robert Sayre wrote:
I think the mapping should be normatively defined w/ XSLT.
+1. I have no problem with defining the mapping in XSLT. Executable
specs are a wonderful idea.
cheers
Bill
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:05:57 +, Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
I think the mapping should be normatively defined w/ XSLT.
+1. I have no problem with defining the mapping in XSLT. Executable
specs are a wonderful idea.
+1.
There still quite a margin for
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 11:13:51 AM, you wrote:
The RDF vocabulary was just constructed ad-hoc - like I said, it is
just a proof of concept. It uses a separate namespace to Atom and
defines some new terms, which solves any problems with non-unique
attributes.
That makes sense.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:27:11 +, David Powell
I've put together an XSLT stylesheet to map Atom to RDF/XML. It is
just as a proof of concept to see if it is possible. I think it
handles everything except for xml:lang - I'm not sure what's happening
with xml:lang at the moment - but it
David Powell wrote:
I don't think using an XSLT processor followed by an RDF/XML parser
would be much fun in practise - a SAX based convertor would be much
simpler.
Those two are not incompatible.
Example: Xalan can accept a SAX input stream and can produce a SAX input
stream. Jena can accept a
David Powell wrote:
I meant, although:
XML --[XSLT]-- RDF/XML --[RDF/XML-parser]-- RDF-model
...is an ok reference implementation for demonstrating an RDF mapping,
the mapping should be defined in prose, because:
XML --[SAX]-- RDF-model
...would be a lot more efficient
I think the mapping
David Powell wrote:
Sunday, January 30, 2005, 1:10:18 AM, you wrote:
David Powell wrote:
I don't think using an XSLT processor followed by an RDF/XML parser
would be much fun in practise - a SAX based convertor would be much
simpler.
Those two are not incompatible.
Example: Xalan can accept a
Friday, January 28, 2005, 9:27:11 PM, you wrote:
Sorry, that version created duplicate rdf:nodeIDs. I've fixed it now,
the new version is 9826 bytes.
--
Dave
10 matches
Mail list logo
