| RE: [higgins-dev] Data Model: Many same-typed attributes? |
|
From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim 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. Jim
[=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. =Drummond |