Re: RDF data model: too flat?

It sounds like you're arguing for some distinction such as that between
'intrinsic' and 'extrinsic' properties of an object. If you're not, it
might be that properties that have literal (non-URI /
non-Resource) values would be much the same sub-set of properties as
your 'attributes'. Either way, it's a hard distinction to make
in a water-tight fashion (eg. Philosophers have bickered for centuries
about such things as whether 'colour' is intrinsic or relational),
particularly when the Web architecture encourages us to use URI-namable
objects whenever possible.

Rather than extend the core RDF model to deal with
intrinsic-vs-relational properties, such distinctions might be layered
on. For example, a sub-class of rdf:Property called
rdfutil:IntrinsicProperty. This sort of distinction I'm sure would prove
useful for many applications (eg. user interface generation), but I
can't personally see a need for it to be in the core data model itself.

Dan


On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 R.van.Dort@Everest.nl wrote:

> Working with the basic RDF model I get the feeling that the RDF data model
> is too flat.
> 
> One of the aspects that has a contradiction with the world around us is
> that in RDF there is (speaking in terms of frame based theory) only one
> type of slot: Property.
> 
> In real world we see objects or things (RDF: Resources) with attributes and
> relations between objects.
> Attributes are dependent on their objects in which they are contained, in a
> (binary) relation two objects are independent in existence but connected.
> 
> For example the weight, color of the eyes and day of birth are typically
> attributes of a Person instance; the father, mother, spouse, car and bank
> account are independent objects related to a certain Person.
> 
> I would make a plea for a second type of slot in the RDF model: Relation or
> BinaryRelation.
> 
> I think that my suggestion is close to the CKML fundamentals, maybe the
> CKML model would be the outcome when we think things all over.
> 
>