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

RE: assymetric reference of properties

From: Eric Hellman <eric@openly.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:41:07 -0500
Message-Id: <v04220810b4b79faffea7@[]>
To: Jeff Sussna <jeff.sussna@quokka.com>, martin <martin@csi.forth.gr>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 9:04 AM -0800 1/28/00, Jeff Sussna wrote:
>Seems like there might be another solution. This solution begins to step
>away from "orthodox" RDF and points to taking first-class properties
>seriously. It involves making the property an object in its own right. In
>other words, rather than saying "x is identified by y" and "y identifies x",
>one would say something along the lines of
>"instance-of-identification-property connects x and y".

And in fact, that's exactly what we did, but we still wanted to have 
reciprocal properties between the link object and the node objects.

I like martin's idea of having a single property name for both 
directions. I think you can do it with the current RDFS, although 
when you have multiple range and domain classes you get less 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Hellman [mailto:eric@openly.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 7:46 PM
>To: martin; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>Subject: Re: assymetric reference of properties
>We encountered the same situation in our linking metadata schema. A
>lot of code was expended making sure that we don't get stuck in
>endless loops while traversing models with these reciprocal
>relationships- probably its a good excuse to keep the "inverse"
>property out of rdfs. But I certainly agree that it's a needed
>facility at some level.

Eric Hellman
Openly Informatics, Inc.
http://www.openly.com/           21st Century Information Infrastructure
LinkBaton: Your Shortcuts to Information  http://linkbaton.com/
Received on Friday, 28 January 2000 14:41:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:28 UTC