W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2001

Re: property inference rule

From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:19:09 -0800
Message-ID: <03bf01c16b9e$2d7dd2b0$0a01a8c0@COWS>
To: <danny@isacat.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Danny Ayers:
> >> I was seeking for ways  to express this rather basic fact using bare
> >RDF(S)/DAML syntax.
> >
> >There's no way of expressing this in RDF, in RDFS or in DAML; it requires
> >the ability to use variables.  Variables are not part of any of the three
> >representations.
>
> I'm not entirely convinced - for one thing, expressing the relationship
> isn't the same as resolving it, so perhaps something like equivalentTo
might
> do.

I think this might be an excellent idea!
Can you come up with a syntax example? :-)

> For another, if it is viewed as a transformation rather than a
> procedure, no variables are required (XSLT, anyone?).

You are right! This was exactly the reason I started to think about it:
Working on one of my stylesheets I realized that I can easily do it,
but could not come with RDF source code.

> If I'm shot down on
> these points, then there's always TimBL's cwm and log:implies.

Sounds interesting, it would be very interesting to see an N3 expression for
this:

property "C" = property "A" of some subject which is an object of property
"B"

Is this a close guess:
{ :x A :y. :y B :z} log:implies { :x C :z }          ?

How would this look in RDF/XML representation?

Thanks,

--Nikita.
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 09:15:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT