Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
For example:
<nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2011:rtr.atla.net"> <nml:Relation type="hasPort"> <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2011:rtr.atla.net:ge-6-0-0_in" /> </nml:Relation> </nml:Node>
Would be translated to:
nml:hasPort rdfs:subPropertyOf nml:Relation .
<urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2011:rtr.atal.net> a nml:Node; nml:hasPort <urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2011:rtr.atla.net:ge-6-0-0_in> .
<urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2011:rtr.atla.net:ge-6-0-0_in> a nml:Port .
This seems easy to read, and easy to translate between XML and OWL, so I'm in favour. It brings up a question I like workgroup consensus on. The XML uses a string ("hasPort") to defined the type of relation, while OWL uses a URI (nml:hasPort) to define the same relation type. There seem three options here: 1. Use strings in both XML and RDF/OWL. Con: this does not work with Jeroen's proposal 2. Use a URI in both XML and RDF/OWL. Con: this makes the XML verbose (even if Pro: easier to define new relation types (users can define their own relation URI, even without involvement of the OGF) 3. Use string in XML and a URI in RDF/OWL, where the URI MUST reside in a specific namespace, so it is easy to translate between the string and URI. Pro: feel more natural in both RDF/OWL and XML. Con: requires OGF standards action to define new relation types. I don't have strong opinion on it, as long as we choose something. Jeroen's proposal above is option #3, so if there are no objects, I propose that we pick that. I'm slightly inclined to use a different namespace for the relation types than the NML-base namespace, for no reason other than that is is slightly easier to document the translation between string-form and URI-form of the type ("for XML, always remove the URI, for RDF/OWL, always use the URI xyz"). But this is a minor decision that I gladly leave to Jeroen to decide. Regards, Freek