W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2010

Re: Higher-arity to RDF binary

From: Jitao Yang <jitao.yang@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:25:37 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimb3QX2lOm8CW9Se1YXKFcHfLkyj3fNXxOLCN0c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Dollin <chris.dollin@epimorphics.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
2010/5/20 Chris Dollin <chris.dollin@epimorphics.com>

> On Wednesday 19 May 2010 04:51:40 pm Jitao Yang wrote:
> > 2010/5/19 Chris Dollin <chris.dollin@epimorphics.com>
> >
> > > On Wednesday 19 May 2010 01:39:52 pm Jitao Yang wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > In reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/,
> > > > suppose we define:
> > > > "... the formula DescPr(*d, p, o*) , asserting that object o is a
> value
> > > of
> > > > property p in description *d*. ..."
> > > >
> > > > and we have:
> > > > DescPr(*d, p, o*)
> > > > DescPr(*d', p, o'*)
> > > >
> > > > the above formula could be represented by RDF like:
> > > >
> > > > :d
> > > >        a                           :DescPr_description ;
> > > >        :has_property       :p .
> > > >
> > > > :d'
> > > >        a                            :DescPr_description ;
> > > >        :has_property        :p .
> > > >
> > > > :p
> > > >        a                          :DescPr_property ;
> > > >        :has_value           :o ;
> > > >         :has_value           :o' .
> > > >
> > > > >From these triples how can we go back in a unique way to the logical
> > > > representation.
> > >
> > > I don't think you can, and I think that's because it's not a good
> > > representation (and vice-versa).
> > >
> > > I wasn't sure which bit of http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/
> > > you were comparing/contrasting to.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I reference to case1 and case3 together from
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/,
> > what is your idea of representing the formula using RDF?
>
>
Thank you very much for your help, but by representing your idea with
Turtle:


>  I'd use case3, which seems the most natural to me for this
> example, or perhaps case1 with a predicate-centric approach.
>
> case3:
>
>    [a Formula; relation p; on d; value o].
>    [a Formula; relation p; on d', value o'].
>
>
:DescPr       a                           :Formula ;
                    :has_relation         p .

:p                 a                           :Relation ;
                    on:d                      value:o ;
                    on:d'                     value:o' .

the problem is how to define "on" and "value" in RDFS?
Or, you can use the other ways to represent it by Turtle?


> case 1:
>
>    p assertion [on d; value o], [on d'; value o']
>
> Depending, of course, on what the conext was that I was working in.
>
> --
> "The process will be long and ... unreliable."                 Box, /Star
> Cops/
>
> Epimorphics Ltd
> Registered address: C/O Robson Taylor, Froomsgate House, Bristol
> Registered number:  7016688
>
>
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 09:26:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:19 UTC