[tdwg-tapir] Mapping to CNS file
Renato De Giovanni
renato at cria.org.br
Thu Mar 22 18:26:32 CET 2007
Can you give an example of the URI using a fragment identifier for a
concept source? Are you thinking about something like this:
It will probably be the simplest solution now.
The configuration interface (and the CNS handler) can be changed
later to support URIs that don't specify a conceptual schema.
On 22 Mar 2007 at 14:23, Roger Hyam wrote:
> I am trying to get my head round this and figure out if it matters or
> When some one is running a configurator on a wrapper they need to
> pick sets of concepts (concept_source) that they will map for a
> particular endpoint.
> The configurator needs to get these sets of concepts from somewhere
> that is managed centrally for any one thematic network so that it can
> be kept up to date.
> The configurator will probably know about some sets of concepts when
> it is installed but the user needs to be able to specify other sets.
> In the case of the set of concepts being contained in an XML Schema
> there is a 1:1 relationship between the set and a URI.
> In the case of the set of concepts being contained in a CNS file (as
> currently specified) there is potentially a one to many relationship
> where the URI may refer to many sets of concepts in a single file
> unless we adopt a convention of using a fragment identifier in the
> URI to specify a particular concept_source within the CNS.
> The advantage to having multiple concept_sources in a single CNS is
> that the wrapper can be distributed with the URI of a CNS that can
> subsequently contain new concept_sources that weren't known about
> I suspect that (although it would be good to have a system where the
> configurators lead people through choosing which concept_sources they
> might want to map things against) it is actually much easier just to
> have a web page that describes them and gives the URI to enter into
> the configurator.
> My preference at the moment is to adopt the convention of using the
> fragment identifier to point out which concept_source within a CNS is
> used. The URI fragment == alias of the concept_source. This keeps the
> 1:1 mapping of URI to concept_source and the implementation simple.
> The wrapper can simply not support CNS mapping where the fragment
> isn't specified or it can load the whole CNS and ask the user to pick
> which concept_source they want to use.
> A possibility for the TAPIRLink implemenation is to have the
> schemas.xml file loaded from a central location.
> From the ontology point of view it makes sense to have a URI for
> each main object types that returns the CNS for that view onto the
> ontology - so I guess that is the reason I did it that way. I could
> always put together a uri that returned a concatenation of the CNS
> files for all the different entry points for the ontology if that was
> What do you think?
More information about the tdwg-tag