W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2009

Re: modelling issue?

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:15:48 +0000
Message-ID: <4a4804720912061115p79ad4f7cw99af6df2f17b52e3@mail.gmail.com>
To: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Following further enquiry into some aspects of this thread
I have come across an interesting (long) paper,

Leveraging Knowledge reuse
and system Agility in the
Outsourcing Era
Igor Crk, University of Arizona, USA
Dane Sorensen,

http://www.infosci-online.com/downloadPDF/pdf/ITJ4155_M28TbL5NcG.pdf

(Not sure if requires campus level access or anyone can retrieve it, email
if you need a copy and cant access it)


At the very bottom of this paper, page 14,   tables 3 and 4 show RDF
constructs in relation to the MOF (metaobject facility) equivalent

I find this comparison extremely helpful, since it helps me understand RDF
properties in relation to other
contructs I may also be familiar with (Object Model)

I tried to retrieve the same tables from the sources cited in the paper, but
did not find it immediately (didnt search much either)
http://www.w3schools.com/rdf/default.asp

Wonder if a table like this is a useful cognitive artefact to explain RDF,
and wheter it already exists
somewhere in the spects and I may have missed it before?
(too much info perhaps)




PDM

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> During Vocamp Glasgow, I tried to confront my difficulties in identifying
> some domain range of few vocabularies that I started rdfizing as practice,
> and from explosing my questions to a whole range of RDF doctors (thanks
> Norm, Keith, Serge) two things emerged, that i did not know before
>
> 1) an entity (class, object, subject) does not necessarily have domain
> /range
>
> Is that so, and what's the rule/ and possibly exceptions/ that can be
> inferred and applied?
>
> that did not emerge at Vocamp
>
>
> 2) Apparently a triple can be of two kinds:
>
> class:relation:class
>
>  but also
> class:attribute:value
>
> Of this i would like some confirmtion (is this right?),
> Finally,  finally, wouldnt' this ambiguity be confusing?
>
> i dont have a case study for this yet, but if this is true I suspect it
> could cause some possible  logical conflict/ambiguity
> in semantic data model and its implementation
> am I the only one thinking so?
>
>
> Are the above points addressed in some RDF tutorial
>
> please enlighten!
> thanks a lot
>
> PDM
>
>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio
**************************************************
The trouble with the world is that the stupid
are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Bertrand Russell
**************************************************


***************************************************
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 19:16:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 14:25:16 GMT