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

RE: RDF data model: too flat?

From: Jeff Sussna <jeff.sussna@quokka.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:47:05 -0800
Message-ID: <E19A882C6CD5D211A8A70008C75B6AF40122D074@pcmail.quokka.com>
To: "'R.van.Dort@Everest.nl'" <R.van.Dort@Everest.nl>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
You can of course model such relations on top of RDF. The primary thing you
lose is schema validation, since you've now created a new abstract model on
top of and separate from RDF's.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: R.van.Dort@Everest.nl [mailto:R.van.Dort@Everest.nl]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 2:21 AM
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: RDF data model: too flat?


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.
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2000 14:40:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT