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

Re: Integrity constraints in DAML-O (was: Chainsaw?)

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 12:02:02 -0800
Message-ID: <3A0319BA.86188893@robustai.net>
To: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
CC: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:

> I think a "proper name" construct can be introduced without extending or
> bending RDF as something like this:
>
>     [AnyResource]--properName-->[(anon?)] --rdf:Type--> [ProperName]
>                                 [       ] --value-----> "(name string)"

Can I ask a really stupid question:  Why can't this just be:

[AnyResource]--properName-->"(name string)"
[AnyResource]--rdf:Type-->[ProperlyNamed]

What is the utility of the extra node?  Can't the schema for "properName" indicate that
its object is expected to be a public string just like "rdf:value"?  Also can't
{[AnyResource]--rdf:Type-->[ProperlyNamed]} be inferred by relationships hung off of
properName ?

<signature format="mime/topic">
topic: Seth Russell
isConfusedAbout:  (anagramOf: DAML)
prefers:
    {topic: DAML
     anagramOf: Distributed Agent Markup Language}

topic: DAML
inContextOf:
    { url: http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/11/01/semanticweb/index.html
      topic: DAML
      anagramOf: Distributed Agent Markup Language}
inContextOf:
    {url: http://www.daml.org/
     topic: DAML
     anagramOf: DARPA Agent Markup Language}

topic: DARPA
anagramOf: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
url: http://www.darpa.mil/
</signature>
Received on Friday, 3 November 2000 15:01:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT