TriX is not particularly well-suited for XSLT processing as it's a raw list of statements. A nested resource/property structure like in RDF/XML is a more natural fit for the parent/child traversal that XSLT does best.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Conal Tuohy <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 October 2017 at 18:53, Martynas Jusevičius <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I wouldn't be so categorical :) We generate all the UI layouts straight > > from RDF/XML using XSLT 2.0: > > https://github.com/AtomGraph/Web-Client/blob/master/src/ > > main/webapp/static/com/atomgraph/client/xsl/bootstrap/2.3.2/layout.xsl > > > > The prerequisite is that RDF/XML structure is predictable like Jena's > > output, not any RDF/XML that is possible in the wild. > > > I agree; it's only convenient to process RDF/XML with XSLT when it is known > to have some particular structure. And unfortunately, in general, RDF/XML > can't be relied on to have any particular structure, because RDF/XML is a > very complicated formats which provides many different ways to encode the > same triples. > > For people who wish to process RDF using XSLT, XQuery, or similar > languages, a simpler solution is to use an XML based format with a > completely regular structure: TriX <TriX > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TriX_(serialization_format)>. > > TriX is supported by Jena and Fuseki; you can obtain a TriX representation > using HTTP content negotiation in Fuseki, by sending an "Accept" header > with the value "application/trix+xml". > <https://www.w3.org/community/rax/wiki/Draft_Material#RDF. > 2FXML_.22plain.22_profile_suitable_for_XSLT_transformations> > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Olivier Rossel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I don't see any practical usage of managing RDF data via its XML > > serialization through XML tools. > > In my town, a huge project tried to store graph data in a XML > > database. And querying all that with XQuery. > > It was probably the most expensive failure I have seen in my career. > > (performances were awful). > > > > I think it is and always has been a HUGE error to maintain this > > ambiguity that RDF/XML is XML. No no and no, it is RDF. > > May be you can generate RDF/XML via XML tools. Sure. > > But consuming RDF/XML with XML tools is a BAD idea. > > > -- > Conal Tuohy > http://conaltuohy.com/ > @conal_tuohy > +61-466-324297 >
