Re: UDEF Representation in RDF

>
>
> >
> > Is the  relationship between the fields strictly one of about-ness;
> everything that is in some way about a
> United-States.Air-Force.Assigned.Identifier it is in somewhat about an
> Air-Force.Assigned.Identifier?
> >
> A Military.Aircraft.Asset_United-States.Air-Force.Assigned.Identifier is a
> Military.Aircraft.Asset_Air-Force.Assigned.Identifier. It is also a
> Aircraft.Asset_United-States.Air-Force.Assigned.Identifier, an
> Asset_Identifier, and all the combinations in between.
>
> I don't believe we should think in terms of joins in the classical sense,
> but rather about deductions to be made from the information contained in
> different records, that might produce new records containing derived
> information. (This is a bit like the difference between SPARQL and SQL).
> UDEF tagging can make a meaningful contribution to such deductions, even if
> the tags cannot be used to identify fields on which to join records.
>
>
I don't think it is really about "all combinations in between", but instead
this sounds like what your really just trying to allude to is that:

The United States maintains an Armed
Force<http://www.freebase.com/view/military/armed_force>in the
category of Air Defense.  And similarly, the Royal Canadian Air
Force is an Armed Force
<http://www.freebase.com/view/military/armed_force>in the same
category of Air Defense.  And that most "Air Defense
categorized Armed Forces" typically will maintain an "Aircraft Asset ID"
that is assigned by that Armed Force.

-- 
-Thad
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry