RE: [tag] Something like RDF and Structure for TAs

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

RDF could be one representation candidate for Tas. Something to worry
about once we have cleared the underlying TA model we still have to
agree on ;-)

But certainly, in the spirit of appealing to various standard
communities, several TA representations could be suggested. RDF is one
of them (it also has an XML mapping). One of the challenges, is that its
modeling is at such a primitive level (e.g. in any data model it can
apply to any attribute or function as "object-property-value") that RDF
could be used in many ways here. 

For example, we could also decide that RDF triples
subject-predicate-object could map to a very generic RDF graph that will
express our TA model, like:
TAid-IUT-value
TAid-test-value
TAid-specreference-value
...

So we would have:

Subject (IUT): #101.02
Predicate: IUT
Object: Issue Date
Subject (IUT): #101.02
Predicate: Test
Object: is of DDMMYYYY format  <-- this assertion itself could be model
as an RDF triple, closer to what you did.
...
Etc.
...

An interesting possibility is the composability of RDF triples into
graphs. 

Jacques


-----Original Message-----
From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk [mailto:stephen.green@systml.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:46 PM
To: TAG TC
Subject: [tag] Something like RDF and Structure for TAs

Greetings TAG TC

I was just reading a posting on XML Dev and a link posted was to W3C's
GRDDL spec which has this introduction which looks very similar to the
way I've personally been trying TAs in recent work:

http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec#intro

It does seem to relate to my own thinking about structuring a TA.

In short I'd see an idealized TA as the equivalent of what GRDDL notes
as an RDF triple, namely:

Subject (read IUT) + predicate (read TA in predicate form) + object
(read part of the predicate which is outside of the mere logic)

So for example if I have a spec which reads "The issue date is mandatory
and must be of the format DDMMYYYY"
I can break that down as two TAs:

common to both:
* Spec Ref: http://www.mycompany.com/spec#101
* Subject (IUT): Issue Date

TA Id: #101.01:
Predicate: Is mandatory (or expressed with XML Schema language,
minOccurs = 1)
Object: cardinality

TA Id: #101.02
Predicate: Is DDMMYYYY (need an attribute, as Jacques says, for whatever
    expression language DDMMYYYY is)
Object: format

Then these TAs can easily be expressed I would think using RDF
(borrowing from the W3C example and adapting it to a TA model but I'm
not sure whether Dublin Core has anything like a TA's IUT or whether
FOAF has anything useful, mind, but you get the idea) to give something
like:

<rdf:RDF
     xmlns:ta="http://some-tag-url.org/...";
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";
     xmlns:core="http://purl.org/...";>

   <rdf:Description rdf:about=
"http://www.mycompany.com/spec/ta-101.01/6b050dcf-7ab1-456d-9e1b-c3c41c1
8eed2">
     <core:IUT>Issue Date</core:IUT>
     <tag:has>
       <tag:Cardinality rdf:about=
    
"http://www.mycompany.com/date/syntax/xsd/33b3c323-77c2-417c-a5b4-af7e6a
111cc9">
         <tag:expression>minOccurs='1'</tag:expression>
       </tag:Cardinality>
     </tag:has>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=
"http://www.mycompany.com/spec/ta-101.02/6b050dcf-7ab1-456d-9e1b-c3c41c1
8eed2">
     <core:IUT>Issue Date</core:IUT>
     <tag:has>
       <tag:Format rdf:about=
    
"http://www.mycompany.com/date/syntax/???/33b3c323-77c2-417c-a5b4-af7e6a
111cc9">
         <tag:expression>Is DDMMYYYY</tag:expression>
       </tag:Format>
     </tag:has>

   </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

No idea if this is proper RDF but it gives an idea of what I'm thinking
about.
I'm not sure I'd choose RDF to express a TA but the tuple approach seems
to me to be quite suitable for TAs and seems to back the concept of
splitting a TA formally into 'IUT + predicate...' and perhaps I think
'...+ Subject'.
So I'm suggesting, I suppose (based on my own experiments for a recent
project) splitting the predicate (whether it is called predicate or
outcome) into a logical predicate part and an object, assuming the IUT
is the subject.

Maybe people will want to use RDF so this might help facilitate doing
so.

Best regards

--
Stephen Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice







---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php