Paul, I meant non-RDF XML to RDF/XML (triples) or to TriX (quads). As soon as we have RDF, SPARQL from there (CONSTRUCT for transformations).
What is the RDF bullshit? On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 at 23:17, Paul Houle <[email protected]> wrote: > @Martynas, With XSLT are you talking about using XSLT to generate an > XML/RDF document? Or punching in some UDFs that generate triples? > > One advantage of the low-to-no-configuration route is that you can start > doing SPARQL queries on the data on an exploratory basis without having to > do much or any work on setting up a transformation. > > If you translate XML to RDF in a transparent way, you will also find that > many of the pattern matching things you could do with XPath, XQuery or > XSLT can be done in ways that are much more transparent with SPARQL, Jena > rules, etc. > > XML has a quite a bit of funkiness in it that leads to non-essential > complexity such as asymmetries in the handling of attributes and elements > such as attributes almost always being the default namespace. Individually > these are not so bad but when you add them up they introduce a large number > of latent errors and cognitive load on the part of users and programmers. > > A big difference also has to do with the handling of ordering of things. > For instance in an XML document the order of elements matters, whereas in > RDF world the order of things doesn't matter unless you actually use the > list constructions. Sometimes in the problem space the order does not > matter and then the "order-matters" semantics implicit to XML leads to a > conceptual gap that causes lots of little practical problems. > > With the "low-to-no-configuration" route you also can use one set of tools > (SPARQL, Jena Rules) for XML, JSON, Relational, YAML, Stuff imported > directly from Java, etc. > > My take is that programmers already need to learn too many things and know > too many different tools and we are too proud to admit we have cognitive > limits -- if we add RDF to a system we are adding the (unavoidable) > bullshit that comes with RDF and unless we can subtract at least as much > bullshit from the system from the benefits of RDF, RDF is part of the > problem and not part of the solution. > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Martynas Jusevičius < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > I am all for RDF conversion tools, but I think this would be much more > > reusable and portable if done as an XSLT stylesheet -- and probably > > more readable, too. > > > > I don't think there is a better tool than XSLT (2.0) when it comes to > > XML conversion. > > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Håvard Mikkelsen Ottestad > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I just wanted to give some publicity to a library I have worked on for > > some time. An XML to RDF Java library (open source / apache 2) that’s > > compatible with Jena. > > > > > > It’s blazingly fast and highly configurable. Available on GitHub > > https://github.com/AcandoNorway/XmlToRdf and on Maven > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/no.acando/xmltordf > > > > > > Regards, > > > Håvard M. Ottestad > > > > > > -- > Paul Houle > > *Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems, > Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes* > > (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype [email protected] > > :BaseKB -- Query Freebase Data With SPARQL > http://basekb.com/gold/ > > Legal Entity Identifier Lookup > https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/ > <http://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/> > > Join our Data Lakes group on LinkedIn > https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=8267275 >
