[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16351465#comment-16351465
]
Andy Seaborne edited comment on JENA-1477 at 2/3/18 6:08 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Presumably you are calling {{model.write}} with "RDF/XML", not "RDF/XML-ABBREV"?
See https://jena.apache.org/documentation/io/rdf-output.html#rdfxml
The default format for RDF/XML in RIOT is {{RDFFormat.RDFXML_PRETTY}} which
corresponds to "RDF/XML-ABBREV".
Using {{RDFFormat.RDFXML_PLAIN}} with {{RDFDataMgr.write}} is the way to choose
a specific form of RDF/XML.
For maximum output control, look at {{RDFWriter.create()}}.
> Is it the best way to ensure backwards compatibility of the RDF/XML output
> when moving from Jena 2>3?
No. {{RDFWriterFImpl}} should not be considered a public API class.
> What purpose do alternative writers serve
It is the same a pair of writers as jena has had in Jena2. What has changed is
the interpretation of the writer name.
The pretty write produces much more readable RDF/XML. Since switching the
default, the number of user questions about RDF/XML has dropped off.
The pretty form is stripped RDF/XML.
(This comment refers to Jena 3.6.0.)
was (Author: andy.seaborne):
Presumably you are calling {{model.write}} with "RDF/XML", not "RDF/XML-ABBREV"?
See https://jena.apache.org/documentation/io/rdf-output.html#rdfxml
The default format for RDF/XML in RIOT is {{RDFFormat.RDFXML_PRETTY}} which
corresponds to "RDF/XML-ABBREV".
Using {{RDFFormat.RDFXML_PLAIN}} with {{RDFDataMgr.write}} is the way to choose
a specific form of RDF/XML.
For maximum output control, look at {{RDFWriter.create()}}.
> Is it the best way to ensure backwards compatibility of the RDF/XML output
> when moving from Jena 2>3?
No. {{RDFWriterFImpl}} should not be considered a public API class.
> What purpose do alternative writers serve
It is the same a pair of writers as jena has had in Jena2. What has changed is
the interpretation of the writer name.
The pretty write produces much more readable RDF/XML. Since switching the
default, the number of user questions about RDF/XML has dropped off.
The pretty form is stripped RDF/XML.
> Updating from Jena 2.12 to Jena 3.0.1 produces different RDF/XML output IF
> ARQ is loaded
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JENA-1477
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1477
> Project: Apache Jena
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: RDF/XML, RIOT
> Affects Versions: Jena 3.0.1
> Environment: Jena 3.0.1
> Reporter: Andrew Berezovskyi
> Priority: Minor
>
> We are in the process of a Jena 2>3 transition in Eclipse Lyo and discovered
> the following: if the ARQ is used in the application, then the typed node
> elements will be used by default, which did not occur in Jena 2. It causes
> problems for some legacy apps that rely on Lyo.
> We were able to eliminate this behaviour by calling the static method
> RDFWriterFImpl.alternative(null);
> Technically, this ensures that the
> 'org.apache.jena.rdfxml.xmloutput.impl.Basic' implementation is not getting
> substituted for the 'org.apache.jena.riot.adapters.RDFWriterRIOT'.
> Questions:
> # Is it the best way to ensure backwards compatibility of the RDF/XML output
> when moving from Jena 2>3?
> # Is there any way to control the RIOT writer to produce XML w/o typed node
> elements so that we can avoid resetting the alternative writer?
> # (if you have some extra time) What purpose do alternative writers serve?
> What is the difference between the writers in the respective packages as the
> two writers above?
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
