higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Jim Sermersheim
Monday, January 14, 2008 1:38 PM
Higgins dev <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
[higgins-dev] Data Model: Many same-typed attributes?
Mike also resurrected this topic in
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/higgins-dev/msg03734.html
Currently we say there are 0..1 instances of a given attribute on a subject, and for any attribute, there are 1..N values. This question is: Should we change it so we allow 0..N instances of a given attribute, each with 1 value.
In the past, this was brought up because it would better align the IdAS APIs with the way OWL or HOWL works.
From an API point of view, I prefer the grouping one gets with a single attribute with multiple values.
I don't recall other arguments either way. If no one is interested in re-hashing this topic, I'll let it die.
[=Drummond] Jim, I’m not so much interested in re-hashing this topic…as getting to the bottom of it. This is one of those fundamental ontology/data model design decisions that then resonates throughout the entire model. From a newcomer’s POV, I think it’s fascinating that the RDF/OWL model is 0..N instances of an attribute, each with 1 value, while the Higgins Data Model is 0..1 instances of an attribute with 1..N values.
Whatever the ultimate decision is, this is one topic that deserves a really crisp explanation in the upgraded documentation for the Higgins Data Model. Again, I’m willing to help, but this probably warrants a discussion at the F2F first – unless you think we can seriously advance it via email/wiki between now and then.