- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:01:33 -0700
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
>> I agree that this would be useful and indeed there is nothing >> OWL-specific here -- the problem is just the same in RDF (or in any >> language that doesn't have n-ary relations). And the WG is concerned >> with SW in general and not just OWL after all. >> In terms of simplicity though, I would a bit concerned about having >> too much branching: here is pattern 1, and here it is in OWl, and >> here is the same thing in RDF, but it will look slightly differently >> (using domain and ranges, etc.) Any idea on how to structure this so >> that readers interested in one language or the other can get what >> they need without filtering through too much extraneous (for them) >> information? >> Basically, back to the issue of what a good template for this would >> be. > > I think that it would be OK to leave the current document structure as > is, and have a further appendix with the RDF version, probably only in > RDF/XML, since the target reader for the appendix will be happiest > with that. In the intro, that structure could be explained: > > e.g. > "Readers interested in expressing n-ary relationships with RDFS only, > (not using OWL), should see the examples in Appendix X; these > correpond to the design patterns explained earlier (with OWL > examples)." Makes sense -- will try to do this for the next draft. I guess we can use the same structure for the TopicMaps version that Bernard suggested. Natasha
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 20:01:54 UTC