Danny Ayers wrote:
> On 4/27/05, Emmanuel Pietriga <Emmanuel.Pietriga_at_lri.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>The RDF/XML raw file is the source code. The XML parser can generate a
>>DOM tree or any other data structure that represents the XML infoset.
>>This infoset is equivalent to the AST. This means that RDF/XML+XSLT
>>works at the level of the AST, instead of working at the level of a
>>"semantically meaningful representation of the program". Wrong level of
>>abstraction (too low), thus conceptually defective approach.
>
> Is it then also conceptually defective to work on object-oriented
> representations of the graph? Objects/members/methods aren't
> semantically meaningful at the RDF graph level either.
I have a problem with naming technologies 'conceptually defective' or
'wrong': it doesn't buy us anything and creates animosity and a sense of
rivalry that we simply don't need.
I would simply say that the use of XSLT as to manipulate RDF is
'suboptimal' to other methodologies that work against the RDF infoset
directly instead of working on its XML infoset projection.
Nobody can honestly claim that XSLT is 'optimal' for RDF manipulation,
not even the XSL WG.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi
Research Scientist Digital Libraries Research Group
Massachusetts Institute of Technology location: E25-131C
77 Massachusetts Ave telephone: +1 (617) 253-1096
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 email: stefanom at mit . edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Apr 27 2005 - 13:38:09 EDT