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

Re: Linkbases, Topic Maps, and RDF Knowledge Bases -- help me

  • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>
  • To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
  • Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 09:30:47 -0400

specialized rdf relationships
Uche Ogbuji says -

>
> > - Create or use class hierarchies
> >    RDF: similar to hierarchies in constructs.
> >    TM: Same as for hierarchies.
>
> Both are really type hierarchies, and the class/type confusion is part of
> the OO pollution.
>

One kind of hierarchy is the type-instance one, another is the
class-subclass (or could be called type-subtype).  The type-instance is
natively supported in TM, but it is a great temptation to use it for
type-subtype relationships anyway.  You could declare class-subclass
hierarchies in TM (no matter what you thought a class is supposed to be) but
there is no native semantics for them.

Both "type" and "class" have been used for a very long time in logic nad
philosophy, and their meaning seems to drift around.  Are they the same
(outside of OO)?  Hmm...

> > - Declare that one thing is an instance of type.
> >    RDF: Very feasible
> >    TM: built-in, duck soup
>
> Why is this "very feasible" in RDF?  It's built in as well:
>
Well taken, forgot about that one.
> <rdf:Description
>   about="http://spam.com#Malatesta"
>   type="http://art.org#Patron">
> [...]
>
>
> >    TM: feasible but must be layered on top, primarily no doubt by
defining
> > the nature of various association topics.  May become built-in in the
> > future.
>
> Oh.  I think I see what you mean now, but it's just another example of why
> RDF is low-level.  Inferencing itself can be built using RDF constructs in
> a variety of ways.
>
How is this different in level, though, from TM, abut which the same xould
be said?

> Containers are one of the things that pollute RDF's low-level nature, and
> I think this is part of why they are problematic.  I think that containers
> should be built at a level on top of RDF.
>
I'm not too sure about this.  I mean, you can do any static logic circuit
with NAND gates, but having other specialized types is very useful and may
be better for performance.  I don't mind specialized constructs if there
aren't too many and they are well-designed to help to common jobs.

> Perhaps RDF should be broken into 4 specs:
>
> 1) RDF Model (ditch the containers, aboutEachPrefix and all that other
> sauce)
> 2) RDF Library (useful collection of constructs built on (1), such as
> containers and N-Ary relationships such as measured relationships and
> general associations.
> 3) RDF Schemas
> 4) RDF Serialization (XML and LISP serializations for RDF)
>
Sounds good.

> > - Filter.
> >    RDF: no particular built-in machinery.
> >    TM: built-in, elaborate machinery (scopes)
>
> Again, this is because RDF is lower level.  You can build "scopes" on top
> os RDF in many ways.  One popular approach that has been discussed on
> www-rdf-interest has been "contexts", which are similar to TM scopes.
>
Yup, each can be "extended" to supply things the other already has.

 Fun discussion!

Cheers,

Tom P


PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.