Re: [tag] Proof of Concept Example of Representation

[stephen.green@systml.co.uk]

Of course, with RDF, as well as catering for a splitting
of the predicate into property name and property value
(target A 'has a property called B with a value C') it
also provides for the splitting of the predicate into a
verb and object (more like our view of a predicate) so

  rdf:subject = TA Target
  rdf:predicate = verb of what we'd call the predicate
  rdf:object = object noun(s) of what we'd call the predicate

This might be more practical for some types of TA predicates.
It seems a bit arbitrary, then, how the predicate is split.
So it seems that rdf:predicate has a coded value or name and
rdf:object typically has a literal value; rdf:object is more
variable while rdf:predicate is more likely to be a fixed
value defined in a list somewhere. In my example the rdf:pre-
dicate is itself a name-value pair with 'Property' as the
general name and with values 'Contains' and 'SchemaValid'
which are limited vocabulary coded values, well-defined
somewhere. So 'Property' could be a name defined for TAs in
general while 'Contains' and 'SchemaValid' would be more
specific to the subject of the specification or implementation
and it might be best left to TA writers to list and define these.
'Contains', however might be considered so generic as to warrant
being defined for TAs as a whole, along with a few other terms
like it.

Quoting stephen.green@systml.co.uk:

> Another way to represent the test assertions using RDF might be
> like that below.
> Not sure about whether it's OK to use dc:identifier for TA ID or
> OK to use rdf:Statement with rdf:about pointing to Spec Ref.
> Not sure how to make more complex TAs this way. (May be safer to
> create a special TA vocabulary instead of just using RDF's and
> perhaps Dublin Cores's to make the semantics specific to TAs.)
>
> Subject = TA Target
> Predicate = name of name/value pair of what we'd call the predicate
> Object = value of name/value pair of what we'd call the predicate
>
> It should be well within scope of RDF to add qualifiers for targets
> and/or to include classes and subclasses of targets, I would think.
>
>
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";
> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";>
> 	<rdf:Description
> rdf:about="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-example"; dc:date="2007-12-24T10:37:00" dc:title="Example Test Assertion List for example 1.0   
> Invoice
> Subset">
> 		<rdf:Statement
> rdf:about="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-statement-00001";>
> 			<rdf:subject
> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#ubl1/Invoice.Details/"/>
> 			<rdf:predicate
> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#Property";>SchemaValid</rdf:predicate>
> 			<rdf:object
> rdf:resource="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/cd-UBL-1.0/xsdrt/maindoc/UBL-Invoice-1.0.xsd"/>
> 			<dc:identifier
> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-ta-00001"/>
> 		</rdf:Statement>
> 		<rdf:Statement
> rdf:about="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-statement-00002";>
> 			<rdf:subject
> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#ubl1/Invoice.Details/"/>
> 			<rdf:predicate
> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#Property";>Contains</rdf:predicate>
> 			<rdf:object
> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#ubl1/Invoice.IssueDate.Date/"/>
> 			<dc:identifier
> rdf:resource="http://purl.oclc.org/NET/systml#UBL-Invoice-1_0-example-1_0-subset-0_1-ta-00002"/>
> 		</rdf:Statement>
> 	</rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting stephen.green@systml.co.uk:
>
>> That file didn't come out too well on the mail list archive
>> - the .rdf extension appears as a '.bin' file online and gets
>> wrongly treated by applications so here is a slightly improved
>> version with a .xml extension and minor corrections. (Just a
>> proof of concept taking a fictitious UBL subsetting use case.)
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>> Quoting stephen.green@systml.co.uk:
>>
>>> Just been experimenting a little with a representation idea.
>>> It works out quite well. It's RDF but could be converted to
>>> any other representation. (Starting with RDF might ensure
>>> GRDDL could be used, say, to convert to a form for Semantic
>>> Web or storage in RDF database.) What works nicely is the
>>> fact that limited vocabularies (keywords/tags) can be created
>>> locally in an accompanying file and pointed to using XML:base
>>> and IDs. No Prerequisites here or dependencies or qualifiers
>>> but these should be easily added I hope.
>>> -- 
>>> 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