W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: wildcard resource representation

From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:03:01 +0200
Message-Id: <D2E25F8A-103A-41A7-9EA7-A7591C087526@bblfish.net>
Cc: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

Garret, I saw an ontology just recently that set out to do what you  
want. Check out

http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2007/07/19/powder_update

Not sure how well accepted it is, but I think it does what you want.

On 1 Aug 2007, at 10:24, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

>
> On 1 Aug 2007, at 02:57, Garret Wilson wrote:
>> I'm creating an ontology in which it is useful to identify "any  
>> resource". That is, let's say that I want to specify to which  
>> resource a particular <eg:Rule> applies. I can specify (let me try  
>> my hand at N3 here);
>>
>> [] a eg:Rule;
>>  eg:appliesTo <urn:uuid:92f01109-e08e-4ac2-b0d4-b13f65ba7595>
>>
>> That means that the rules applies to some identified resource. But  
>> is there any convention for identifying "any resource"? I see  
>> several options:
>
> That's why we have blank nodes.
>
> [] a eg:Rule;
>     eg:appliesTo [ a rdfs:Resource ];
>     .
>
> This says that the rule applies to "anything that has rdf:type  
> rdfs:Resource".
>

I don't think so Richard. That says that the rule applies to some  
thing that has type rdfs:Resource.
You need N3 quantification to work on every rule.



> Since, in fact, *everything* is of type rdfs:Resource, this is  
> redundant, and can be stated simply as
>
> [] a eg:Rule;
>     eg:appliesTo [];
>     .
>
> "This rule applies to anything."

No:
"This rule applies to something"

very different

>
> The nice thing about this is that you can do things like:
>
> [] a eg:Rule;
>     eg:appliesTo [ a foaf:Person; foaf:name "Garret" ];
>     .
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 09:03:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:17 GMT