Re: Comments on 'precedural approaches'

From: Emmanuel Pietriga <>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:00:20 +0200

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> Danny Ayers wrote:
>> On 4/27/05, Emmanuel Pietriga <> 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.
Received on Wed Apr 27 2005 - 18:59:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:18 EDT