Right! This is the classical problem of explicit hierarchy versus flat
or mostly-flat namespaces which are associated in a more general fashion
(e.g., hierarchical versus relational structures). Unless you are
trying to model a single complex entity it is almost always better
to use the relational approach where simple, well-defined entites are
associated. This allows more complex relationships to be described,
permits multiple views of the same data, and in some cases can permit
inference. The namespace/mapping approach is a good one for vocabularies.
For structured data one does much the same thing, but the namespace in
this case is a component data model. - Doug
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Rob Seaman wrote:
> If UCDs were used to create and track such lists, one could attempt to
> achieve the same many-to-one mapping by relying on the hierarchical nature of
> UCDs: filter.R.this_is_a_specific_wideband_R_filter. This has problems on
> both ends. First, there will often be a redundant prefix like "filter." and
> second, who is to say that it is the "R-ness" of the filter that we wish to
> capture in a short nickname? Perhaps we rather need to capture the
> "wideband-ness" of the filter. The problem with relying on a hierarchy in a
> single namespace is precisely that only one hierarchy exists per namespace.
> On the other hand, multiple mappings are trivial with multiple namespaces.
Received on 2005-12-01Z20:37:50