W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2005

Re: How to state simple facts in RDF

From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:26:04 +0200
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m3vf3x2nhv.fsf@pavarotti.intern.opera.no>


* Dan Brickley
|
| Not such a bad idea. Except I'm not sure "really being a unary
| association" is easy to define. 

Yes and no. I think in RDF it can be very fuzzy whether or not
something inherently is a unary association. In fact, I would go
further and say that probably the reason it is difficult to define is
that there is no such thing in the real world, ie: the distinction is
artificial.

In topic maps, however, there's a razor-sharp line, since it's a
question of abstract syntax. Either it was a unary association, or it
was not, and there's no ambiguity whatsoever. In this particular case
we start from topic maps, so that is not a difficulty.

| In prolog, one might write "person(dan)" while in RDF I'd use the
| class foaf:Person. How can we judge whether the class is an
| artificial one or not? 

In this case I'm not sure it's possible.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 15:26:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:43 UTC