On Jul 13, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Tim Smith <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ok, now we have the "reason" for needing this functionality:
/*Michel wrote:*/
/*" I explain why important: we have this concept modelling ontology
(CMO) supporting different modelling styles (decomposition, qudt2.0
etc.). I would like to group the mechanisms for the different
modelling styles together and introduce the groups with a comment.
Alternative is to introduce an annotated clone of the file for
information but I do not like that. Yet another alternative is to
annotate all items separately (“supports modelling style x”)."*/
It's interesting to me that you have used an ontology to capture the
knowledge in your domain and then want to use a "document" (i.e.
comments and proper ordering) to capture additional knowledge about
the objects in your CMO.
Could you not create another ontology with a classes like "Modeling
Style Mechanism" and "Modeling Stype Group" and then create Modeling
Style Group instances and link the various mechanism instances to it
using an appropriate property? Then you have a fully query-able
representation of your modeling mechanisms, making the information
easily discoverable, displayable, etc... Ontologies are just triples
and unless you care about strict inferencing, you can interchangeably
use a Class as an instance or a Class. I use this all the time to
capture knowledge and data using the same ontologies.
Just a thought,
Tim
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Irene Polikoff
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Michel,
Serializations and deserialization provide a way for data to be
translated into a format that could be used for transmission,
interchange, storage in a file system, etc. with the ability for
it to be later reconstructed to create */semantically identical/*
clone of the data.
The goal of RDF serializations and tool interoperability is to
ensure that if tool A produces a serialization of a graph X, tool
B can read it in and understand it as graph X. Tool B can then,
in its turn, produce serialization of graph X, tool A can import
it and it is still the same graph. The serialization output of A
may not look exactly the same as the serialization output of B,
but their semantic interpretation is always the same.
Serialization/deserialization process is not intended to ensure
that the sequence of bytes in a file will be exactly the same.
In case of both RDF/XML and Turtle format, there are several
syntactic variations for representing the same information. The
simplest RDF serialization is N-Triple. There is little room in
it for syntactic variations as it just contains triple
statements. However, even with that simplicity, there are
variants since the order of statements may vary. The bottom line
is that if you are using serializations in the interchange and
parse them to deserialize for use in some target system, you need
a parser that will understand what the serialization means
semantically and will not rely purely on the byte sequence.
If TBC parser was ignoring something that captured semantics of
data, this would be a bug. I do not think it is the case. Comma
is not ignored, it is correctly understood by deserialization
when data is imported into TBC. “Deleting it” is not even a
concept because once data is deserialized, comma no longer
exists. We now have a graph. When you save it, it is serialized
anew - without any memory or consideration of how its
serialization looked when it came in. As long as the
serialization still represents semantically identical object, it
is correct.
Regards,
Irene Polikoff
On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:13 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel)
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Seriously, if these low-level details of the TTL syntax are
relevant to you, just use text editors.
* Yes, low-level syntax issues ARE very relevant. They are the
fundament under all we do in the end. When convincing our
client to move from SPFF or XML to RDF and its
serializations they expect implementations that 100% support
these specs. If a comment is a feature of that spec, if a
comma is a feature of that spec they do not expect that a
parser and or writer ignores or even deletes them. Anyway as
said before, lets agree to disagree (although your views in
these matters highly surprise me I must say).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
