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

Re: What about associativity in all these strawman proposals

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:14:51 +0200
To: " - *Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: " - *www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0006800030732823000002L032*@MHS>
Hi Dan,

You are right, I'm always too lazy to give some context.
If a, c and d are nodes and b and d are arcs, and if
[thing] --association--> [otherThing] is expressing
an association, then
a --b--> c --d--> e
[a --b--> c] --d--> e
a --b--> [c --d--> e]
can mean totally different things, isn't it?
So using flat models is only part of the game.

My question is: how is this handled in all these
new strawman proposals?

I am aware of such mechanisms as RDF reification
and I think it is a good way to go (we experienced
that in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler and so on).
I also think that anonymous (non IDfied) things
should be allowed (one could for instance use
logical formulas to do a lot of meaningful things with
them (such as proving some of their properties)).

Is there an alternative for RDF reification?
I could think of using RDF + XLink (to point to the
associated subgraphs (in an XML flat model notation))
for that, but I'm not sure I want to have that.

Jos De Roo --- AGFA
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 04:15:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT