[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [higgins-dev] idas model as entities
|
on #1, the reason I did three different names for "validAttributes" was just an attempt to alleviate confusion. I'll use validAttributes everywhere and we can see if people are ok with it. Note that now a entity class definition has an attribute called http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/ontologies/2008/6/higgins#validAttributes which has as one of its values "http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/ontologies/2008/6/higgins#validAttributes" (similar for http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Property). I think it's ok, it just takes a minute for the reader to get it.
on #2, I allowed min and max cardinality at the attr model because some systems (LDAP/X.500) define attributes to be single-valued at the attr model rather than at the entity model. I think it's ok and less confusing to only have a single place to define min/max, so I agree with Markus' suggestion.
I've updated the wiki with these changes.
Jim
>>> "Markus Sabadello" <msabadello@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 09/02/08 12:40 PM >>>
My opinion is that it's fine.. I don't know how close we want to be to RDF/OWL, but if we want to be as close as possible, then we could do the following:
1. If we want to define what attributes an instance of a model can have, we may want to only have one property for that. I.e. only higgins:validAttributes, not higgins:attributeModelAttributes, higgins:entityAttributes, etc. This higgins:validAttributes is then basically the owl:inverseOf of rdfs:domain. I spent some time in #swig on irc.freenode.net today.. It's funny, in RDF/OWL they have no way of saying that Class X can have Property Y. You can only say it the other way round, i.e. Property Y rdfs:domain Class X. What we want (higgins:validAttributes) is the exact opposite concept.
2. Allow minCardinality and maxCardinality only at the Entity Model, not at the Attribute Model.
3. The idea that higgins:validAttributes has complex values is a slight contraction of what RDF/OWL people would do with rdfs:subClassOf and owl:Restriction, but it seems to be equally powerful, so that looks great to me.
Anyway, just ideas..
Markus