Re: design decision regarding integer predicates

Michael Schneider wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Garret Wilson
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:55 PM
>> To: Semantic Web
>> Subject: Re: design decision regarding integer predicates
>>
>>
>> In most instances I think of the integer 5 as being a cardinal number. 
>> If I use the integer 5 as a predicate to an array resource to indicate 
>> the fifth element, I'm using the integer 5, not as a cardinal number, 
>> but as an ordinal number. Is this a semantic discrepancy I should be 
>> worried about?
>>     
>
> Hm, I probably wouldn't have worried about, if you had not asked... ;-)
>   

Well, you've eased my mind, while I've given you something to worry 
about, I suppose---so we're even. ;)

> I am a little bit embarrassed, but: Wouldn't it (from a pure practical point
> of view) be ok to just write something like
>
>     :myArray array:hasEntry [
>         a array:Entry ; 
>         array:index 0 ;
>         array:value "this is the first entry" 
>         ].
>
> where the prefix "array:" is associated with some Array ontology? 
>   

That's yet another way, yes, and it is "practical" in that RDF supports 
it. So there seem to be about four ways to model array/list things:

1. With integer predicates (my way).
2. With integer-like predicates (rdf:Seq).
3. With single-level indirection (your way).
4. With hierarchical indirection (rdf:List).

> But I suppose that I completely miss your point here, right?
>   

Not completely. I was asking a more general question about an abstract 
semantic design for an array, unshackled from RDF restrictions. You 
understood the question, which delights me very much. :)

Thanks for the feedback!

Garret

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 01:30:00 UTC