- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@home.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:58:20 -0500
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
[Danny Ayers] > > Thanks for these pointers. This is really the big task ahead of me (though > the editing aspect will take some time!) - somehow making the drawn graph > more closely represent the intended semantics in the domain, rather than the > RDF/DAML representation. This would be relatively straightforward to > hard-code for a specific domain, but making it generic seems a lot harder. > At present I'm thinking about providing an additional (RDF) data file, > containing a mapping between the visual graph representation (which will > correspond to the 'humanised' semantics) and the underlying data in the RDF > (or DAML) model. I think that this is a useful approach. Consider that the purpose of the graph is visualization ***for a person***. People have different visualization needs for different types of rdf (and other, of course) graphs, and may even have a need for more than one vusialization style for the same data set. It would be virtually impossible, I think, for a single processor to "understand" what style was needed and what parts of a given graph would contribute to it. This knowledge then needs to be stored somewhere, and better to be in a graph display definition file than hard-coded in. > ... > At the moment these two goals (editing & domain 'relevance') are my main > targets, though further down the line I'd like to add a little reasoning > based around the underlying graph model(s) - for instance, there are quite a > few domains in which shortest-path or travelling salesman algorithms could > be useful. > > You know, this reminds me of XML Spy's ability to give you a editable display page for an xml file, based on a template built for each type of xml document. Good work! Cheers, Tom P
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 08:56:41 UTC