RE: [xml-dev] 'is-a' Relationships in XML?

["stephengreenubl@gmail.com" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Wow. Yes, that fits. Great.

The same convention could be used in 
standalone RDF in hope SPARQL expressions could be resolved to 
retrieve results from markup. Then predicate assertions bound to 
SPARQL could be used to test or validate markup based on ontology 
rather than structure. Cool. There would be a need to have multiple 
'rdf:about' XPaths for a given standalone RDF model. 
Then a way to associate each with a markup namespace, which could be included with a SPARQL, etc expression.


If this convention works it will need a name I guess.

Best regards and thanks

Stephen D Green

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jelliffe
Sent:  10/05/2010 7:59:53 am
To: stephengreenubl@gmail.com
Cc: xml-dev
Subject:  Re: [xml-dev] 'is-a' Relationships in XML?

stephengreenubl@gmail.com wrote:
> If it works, maybe GRDDL is the 
> solution. Otherwise, maybe something similar to the OASIS 
> context / value association file but with RDF or OWL classes or 
> properties, etc as the 'value' would help and maybe give more 
> granularity than GRDDL to the context. GRDDL associates RDF via 
> XSLT with an element or type definition in the schema. 
> Associating RDF or OWL with any context which can be expressed 
> using XPath might be better. I'm not sure I like using XSLT to create RDF 
> for a context. That might obfuscate the reverse lookup where from the 
> RDF side you want to find the XPath for a given class or property or resource.
>   
I suppose your generated RDF could contain a link back to the 
xs:template, by which the XPath (and any priorities) could be 
retrieved.  something like

<xs:template id="T1"  match="s/n/a/f/u">
 
    <rdf:RDF  rdf:about = "{concat( $GRDDL-URL, "#T1") } "   ...

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe