Re: Beginner Questions about DAML and gcc introspector (Also UML)

Mike,



On Fri, 2002-07-19 at 05:07, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> [snip]
> http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~m1sp/projects/2002/GCC/GCC-ast.html

This seems to me to be a broken link.

> [snip]
> http://introspector.sourceforge.net/DAML/introspector.DAML

Same here.

The intent of your project seems interesting.  (Perhaps offline), I'd be
interested to hear the usage scenarios you see it possibly enabling.

> 1. The Classes do not seems to be associated directly with the
> ontology, so if I want to have multiple ontologies in a file then they
> are ambiguous. Of course if this is not legal, I will have to split
> them up into multiple files and bind them back in.
> 
> It seems that the name-space is the layer to to do this on,
> so maybe I can put different name-spaces into the root document
> and associate the classes to the ontologyies via the name-space?

This is the first time I've heard of anyone trying to define multiple
ontologies in a single document.  (Not that I've been listening as long
as many on this list).  What are the requirements of your environment
that would make a single document make the most sense?

> 4. How can I comment a subclass relationship?
> This is invalid according to rdfdump from raptor :
> <DAML:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.gtk.org#Application"> 
> <rdfs:comment>This applies to the subclass of. DIA is a GTKAPP because
> it uses GTK. But it also contains the GTK lib. So maybe we need a new
> property type?</rdfs:comment> 
> </DAML:subClassOf>

I'm pretty much a beginner as well in RDF/XML (I find N3 much easier to
start with), so I hope that someone will correct this if it's wrong, but
could you do:

<Description about="http://www.gtk.org#DIA" bagID="diaSubClassStmt">
  <DAML:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.gtk.org#Application" />
</Description>

<Description about="diaSubClassStmt">
  <rdfs:comment>This applies to the subclass of. DIA is a GTKAPP because
  it uses GTK. But it also contains the GTK lib. So maybe we need a new
  property type?</rdfs:comment> 
</Description>

Share and Enjoy,

   David Saff

Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 11:12:08 UTC