Thanks, Holger, for clearing that up. Indeed, it does make sense. Like you said, RDF and OWl do not distinguish between the schema and the instance data. The Protege project from Stanford seems to declare that there are differences in the way they represenst things and that instance data, or an RDF store. From what I read and fromt he feedback I got there are differences in the way they represent each, thus there would be problems with using that as an Editing tool for RDF.
One other issue about importing an existing rdf file. I had a bio.rdf file which used FOAF, Biography ontology - BIO, REL, and a few others. As you mentioned above, "The source code view only shows the triples that have the currently selected resource as subject." Is there any way to change that so the existing instance data from my bio.rdf file would be recognized both with regard to the instance data that was in the file and with the triples that existed? I did right click on the file and say edit with editor. That doesn't give me any means to edit the file within TBC other than manually editing the xml code. What if I had just imported that into an existing file? On Jul 25, 3:07 am, Holger Knublauch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:36 PM, brucewhealton wrote: > > > Next question: So, this was recommended by someone as a tool for > > editing rdf files in various serializations. I notice in the help > > file that it is described as a tool for editing and creating > > ontologies, which is a little different. Do people use TBC for > > editing RDF or OWL files that serve as "data" or instance data as > > opposed to modeling things which an ontology does? I hope that makes > > sense. It is great to have a tool that does both if that is > > possible. When I want to create a new ontology, I can do that here. > > When I have a few ontologies and want to save data, as triples using > > those ontologies, I assume I can use TBC for this as well. > > Yes absolutely - TBC is for editing both classes and instances. If you think > about it, classes and properties are just different types of instances (of > metaclasses), so it makes sense to use a generic approach with forms that > display and edit any kind of RDF data. The term "ontology" is overloaded - > some people use it to describe the schema, while others regard any RDF/OWL > model as ontology. This is probably what the documentation does as well. > > Holger -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
