[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XSLT, RDF, fragment identifiers

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: XSLT, RDF, fragment identifiers
• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:47:26 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: Message from "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> of "Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:30:04 EDT." <r02000000-1026-AA54E762ABE911D7AD300003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• Sender: uche.ogbuji@f...

> uche.ogbuji@f... (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
> >Unsatisfactory answer (and how I do it): Use a processor that has a
> >normalize-url() or resolve-url() extension function.  For example:
> >4Suite.  I think Saxon has such a beast as well.  In 4XSLT it's
> >resolve-url(), namespace http://xmlns.4suite.org/ext
> 
> Does this work for fragments inside the same document without a separate
> retrieval call?

Yes in the general case.  Yoiu would provide the base URI of the foaf:knows 
lement, which is probbaly the same as the base URI of the node with the 
corresponding foaf:Person.

Of couse, it would break if the user used external parsed entities or xml:base 
in ways that ruined the correspondence of base URIs.  But then their RDF would 
probably also be broken.


> The extra-special catch comes if I have to deal with
> these documents in a pipeline where the base URI may not be meaningful.
> I guess the pipeline could also manage normalization.

As long as the base URI is consistent at the crucial stage of the pipeline, 
for your case it doesn't matter precisely what that URI is.


> >I usually combine this with an xsl:key that indexes rdf:about and
> >rdf:ID. That way I can resolve fragments to full URIs and then look
> >them up easily and efficiently.
> 
> I'm thinking I can make this work for simple ID-based fragment
> identifiers, at least in a context (like RDF) where I know all the IDs
> will be rdf:ID.

II thik in every case where i works OK for rdf:ID, it would work just aswell 
if yuo threw in rdf:about.  Blank nodes, I think, would be the wildcard.  Youd 
probably have to force users to use rdf:nodeId, and then create a new key on 
those IDs.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
XML Data Bindings in Python - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/06/11/py-xml.html
Introducing Examplotron - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-x
mptron/
Charming Jython - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jython.h
tml
The commons of creativity - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x
-think18.html
A custom-fit career in app development - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=7
744

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XSLT, RDF, fragment identifiers
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: XSLT, RDF, fragment identifiers
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XSLT, RDF, fragment identifiers
• Next by Date: Re: XSLT vs. CSS (Re: Indexing)
• Previous by thread: Re: XSLT, RDF, fragment identifiers
• Next by thread: Re: XSLT, RDF, fragment identifiers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread