Comparing topic maps constraint specification languages
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2008 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/1822/7399 |
Resumo: | Topic Map Constraint Language (TMCL) provides a means to express constraints on topic maps conforming to ISO/IEC 13250. In this article, we will use a test suite and show, step-by-step, the way we handled several kinds of Topic Maps constraints in many different instances in order to answer questions like: Do they do the same job? Are there some kinds of Topic Maps constraints that are easier to specify with one of them? Do you need different background to use the tools? Is it possible to use them in similar situations (the same topic maps instances)? May we use them to produce an equal result? How do AsTMa!, OSL, Toma, and XTche relate to Topic Maps Constraint Language (TMCL)? What kind of constraints each one of these three can not specify? We will conclude this paper with a summary of the comparisons accomplished between those Topic Maps constraint languages over the use case proposed. |
id |
RCAP_9e9f548eb020738a7e598e53b4a2a037 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/7399 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
repository_id_str |
https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160 |
spelling |
Comparing topic maps constraint specification languagesTopic mapsOntologySemantic validationTMCLScience & TechnologyTopic Map Constraint Language (TMCL) provides a means to express constraints on topic maps conforming to ISO/IEC 13250. In this article, we will use a test suite and show, step-by-step, the way we handled several kinds of Topic Maps constraints in many different instances in order to answer questions like: Do they do the same job? Are there some kinds of Topic Maps constraints that are easier to specify with one of them? Do you need different background to use the tools? Is it possible to use them in similar situations (the same topic maps instances)? May we use them to produce an equal result? How do AsTMa!, OSL, Toma, and XTche relate to Topic Maps Constraint Language (TMCL)? What kind of constraints each one of these three can not specify? We will conclude this paper with a summary of the comparisons accomplished between those Topic Maps constraint languages over the use case proposed.Springer VerlagUniversidade do MinhoLibrelotto, Giovani RubertAzevedo, Renato Preigschadt deRamalho, José CarlosHenriques, Pedro Rangel20082008-01-01T00:00:00Zconference paperinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/7399engINTERNATIONAL COMFERENCE ON TOPIC MAPS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS (TMRA), 3, Leipzig, GERMANY, 2007 – “Scaling Topic Maps”. [Leipzig : s.n., 2008].97835407087350302-974310.1007/978-3-540-70874-2_10info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2024-05-11T06:25:54Zoai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/7399Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T15:53:02.062543Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparing topic maps constraint specification languages |
title |
Comparing topic maps constraint specification languages |
spellingShingle |
Comparing topic maps constraint specification languages Librelotto, Giovani Rubert Topic maps Ontology Semantic validation TMCL Science & Technology |
title_short |
Comparing topic maps constraint specification languages |
title_full |
Comparing topic maps constraint specification languages |
title_fullStr |
Comparing topic maps constraint specification languages |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparing topic maps constraint specification languages |
title_sort |
Comparing topic maps constraint specification languages |
author |
Librelotto, Giovani Rubert |
author_facet |
Librelotto, Giovani Rubert Azevedo, Renato Preigschadt de Ramalho, José Carlos Henriques, Pedro Rangel |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Azevedo, Renato Preigschadt de Ramalho, José Carlos Henriques, Pedro Rangel |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade do Minho |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Librelotto, Giovani Rubert Azevedo, Renato Preigschadt de Ramalho, José Carlos Henriques, Pedro Rangel |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Topic maps Ontology Semantic validation TMCL Science & Technology |
topic |
Topic maps Ontology Semantic validation TMCL Science & Technology |
description |
Topic Map Constraint Language (TMCL) provides a means to express constraints on topic maps conforming to ISO/IEC 13250. In this article, we will use a test suite and show, step-by-step, the way we handled several kinds of Topic Maps constraints in many different instances in order to answer questions like: Do they do the same job? Are there some kinds of Topic Maps constraints that are easier to specify with one of them? Do you need different background to use the tools? Is it possible to use them in similar situations (the same topic maps instances)? May we use them to produce an equal result? How do AsTMa!, OSL, Toma, and XTche relate to Topic Maps Constraint Language (TMCL)? What kind of constraints each one of these three can not specify? We will conclude this paper with a summary of the comparisons accomplished between those Topic Maps constraint languages over the use case proposed. |
publishDate |
2008 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2008 2008-01-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
conference paper |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/1822/7399 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/1822/7399 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
INTERNATIONAL COMFERENCE ON TOPIC MAPS RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS (TMRA), 3, Leipzig, GERMANY, 2007 – “Scaling Topic Maps”. [Leipzig : s.n., 2008]. 9783540708735 0302-9743 10.1007/978-3-540-70874-2_10 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer Verlag |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Springer Verlag |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
collection |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
info@rcaap.pt |
_version_ |
1833595601750589440 |