Answering somewhat late to this post, sorry...
Ryan Lee wrote:
> == rdf:type ==
>
> Knowing the rdf:type of a resource is vital to lens matching and format
> matching. Either it should always be selected for every lens and
> managed through formats to disappear if not wanted or it should be part
> of the subsystem's job to know the type(s) of every resource and carry
> it through each stage as needed. I missed this until rather late in the
> process and hacked around my error to ensure formats were matched by
> adding rdf:type to all the lenses.
Isn't that why we allow FSL and SPARQL expressions? Because resource
selection might be done on something else than rdf:type info?
> == FSL and SPARQL =
>
> I'm unclear on how to fit FSL and SPARQL could fit into the hash lookup
> described above. Off hand, it seems each expression would have to be
> executed fully against the data graph.
> As Chris Murphy has brought up, there are ambiguities in using FSL and
> SPARQL expressions - for instance, which property label is used in a
> multi-step path?
I would think the default behaviour would be to take the last step's
label. But I would assume that most of the time the designer would
provide an explicit label in the stylesheet, either defined statically
or through an expression that tells where to get it).
--
Emmanuel Pietriga
INRIA Futurs - Projet In Situ tel : +33 1 69 15 34 66
Bat 490, Université Paris-Sud fax : +33 1 69 15 65 86
91405 ORSAY Cedex FRANCE http://www.lri.fr/~pietriga
Received on Tue May 02 2006 - 09:02:21 EDT