W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Re: Reificarion poll

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:06:45 -0800
Message-ID: <3A2A7DA5.82B8BD3@robustai.net>
To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote:

> Are, in your opinion, the following RDF piece, equivalent ??
>
> Example 1:
>
> <rdf:Description about="#d1" xmlns:my="http://schemas.org/">
>     <my:prop rdf:id="s1"> Foo </my:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
> <rdf:Description about="#s1"/>
>     <my:prop> Bar </my:prop/>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> Example 2:
>
> <rdf:Description about="#d1" xmlns:my="http://schemas.org/">
>     <my:prop> Foo </my:prop>
> </rdf:Description>
> <rdf:Statement id="s1">
>     <rdf:subject   resource="#d1"/>
>     <rdf:predicate resource="http://schemas.org/prop"/>
>     <rdf:object> Foo </rdf:object>
> </rdf:Statement>
> <rdf:Description about="#s1"/>
>     <my:prop> Bar </my:prop/>
> </rdf:Description>

Example 1 is an extensional representation of the prop-->foo
arc; it designates explicitly by URI.  Example 2 is an
intensional representation of the arc; it gives a  criteria for
selection.   In the M&S data model, I believe, they map to the
same diagram.  In my mentography they map to different
diagrams.  See [Arc to Arc].   In any case their illative effect
is equivalent.  However, I note that the extensional
representation may have some interesting uses, that are more
difficult with the other method.

[Arc to Arc] http://robustai.net/mentography/arcarc.jpg
Seth Russell
Received on Sunday, 3 December 2000 12:03:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT