Ok, now we have the "reason" for needing this functionality: *Michel wrote:* *" I explain why important: we have this concept modelling ontology (CMO) supporting different modelling styles (decomposition, qudt2.0 etc.). I would like to group the mechanisms for the different modelling styles together and introduce the groups with a comment. Alternative is to introduce an annotated clone of the file for information but I do not like that. Yet another alternative is to annotate all items separately (“supports modelling style x”)."*
It's interesting to me that you have used an ontology to capture the knowledge in your domain and then want to use a "document" (i.e. comments and proper ordering) to capture additional knowledge about the objects in your CMO. Could you not create another ontology with a classes like "Modeling Style Mechanism" and "Modeling Stype Group" and then create Modeling Style Group instances and link the various mechanism instances to it using an appropriate property? Then you have a fully query-able representation of your modeling mechanisms, making the information easily discoverable, displayable, etc... Ontologies are just triples and unless you care about strict inferencing, you can interchangeably use a Class as an instance or a Class. I use this all the time to capture knowledge and data using the same ontologies. Just a thought, Tim On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Irene Polikoff <[email protected]> wrote: > Michel, > > Serializations and deserialization provide a way for data to be translated > into a format that could be used for transmission, interchange, storage in > a file system, etc. with the ability for it to be later reconstructed to > create *semantically identical* clone of the data. > > The goal of RDF serializations and tool interoperability is to ensure that > if tool A produces a serialization of a graph X, tool B can read it in and > understand it as graph X. Tool B can then, in its turn, produce > serialization of graph X, tool A can import it and it is still the same > graph. The serialization output of A may not look exactly the same as the > serialization output of B, but their semantic interpretation is always the > same. > > Serialization/deserialization process is not intended to ensure that the > sequence of bytes in a file will be exactly the same. In case of both > RDF/XML and Turtle format, there are several syntactic variations for > representing the same information. The simplest RDF serialization is > N-Triple. There is little room in it for syntactic variations as it just > contains triple statements. However, even with that simplicity, there are > variants since the order of statements may vary. The bottom line is that if > you are using serializations in the interchange and parse them to > deserialize for use in some target system, you need a parser that will > understand what the serialization means semantically and will not rely > purely on the byte sequence. > > If TBC parser was ignoring something that captured semantics of data, this > would be a bug. I do not think it is the case. Comma is not ignored, it is > correctly understood by deserialization when data is imported into TBC. > “Deleting it” is not even a concept because once data is deserialized, > comma no longer exists. We now have a graph. When you save it, it is > serialized anew - without any memory or consideration of how its > serialization looked when it came in. As long as the serialization still > represents semantically identical object, it is correct. > > Regards, > > Irene Polikoff > > > On Jul 13, 2017, at 4:13 AM, Bohms, H.M. (Michel) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Seriously, if these low-level details of the TTL syntax are relevant to > you, just use text editors. > > > - Yes, low-level syntax issues ARE very relevant. They are the > fundament under all we do in the end. When convincing our client to move > from SPFF or XML to RDF and its serializations they expect implementations > that 100% support these specs. If a comment is a feature of that spec, if a > comma is a feature of that spec they do not expect that a parser and or > writer ignores or even deletes them. Anyway as said before, lets agree to > disagree (although your views in these matters highly surprise me I must > say). > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TopBraid Suite Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Suite Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
