Here is a citation of REC-rdf-syntax with the word "value" having 2 different meanings:
7.3. Non-Binary RelationsI propose to modify the clause in enlarged font this way. Note that at the same time I switched to the indefinite article (a qualifyer), since nothing forbids several qualifyers (like a unit of measure, plus a precision of measure, plus a procedure of measure ). Note also that I reused a word from paragraph 2.3, Qualified Property Values.
The RDF data model intrinsically only supports binary relations; that is, a statement specifies a relation between two resources. In the following examples we show the recommended way to represent higher arity relations in RDF using just binary relations. The recommended technique is to use an intermediate resource with additional properties of this resource giving the remaining relations. As an example, consider the subject of one of John Smith's recent articles -- library science. We could use the Dewey Decimal Code for library science to categorize that article. Dewey Decimal codes are far from the only subject categorization scheme, so to hold the classification system relation we identify an additional resource that is used as the value of the subject property and annotate this resource with an additional property that identifies the categorization scheme that was used. As specified in Section 2.3., the RDF core includes a value property to denote the principal value of the main relation. The resulting graph might look like:
we identify an additional resource that is used as a qualifyer for the subject property
By the way, I saw this in
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 12:12:56 -0400
To: Olivier MARCE <Olivier.Marce@inria.fr>
From: "Ralph R. Swick" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Errors in examples
"We intend to recommend a different representation for higher arity relations in the next draft"
When will this next draft?
<project>Worlwide Botanical Database - making available botanical data on Internet
<a href="http://jmvanel.free.fr/" >site</a>