January 14, 2008 1:38 PM
Data Model: Many same-typed attributes?
resurrected this topic in
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.
past, this was brought up because it would better align the IdAS APIs with the
way OWL or HOWL works.
API point of view, I prefer the grouping one gets with a single attribute with
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.