W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Associations in RDF

From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:09:12 -0400
Message-ID: <3D3C9EA8.56E1224E@mitre.org>
To: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
CC: MDaconta@aol.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

I also wonder about the notion of "subordination" here, Mike. Do you mean
implicit subordination because the "subject" is the focused thing simply
because it is the subject? And so the triple is kind of an assertion primarily
about the subject (with the verb and object somehow being subordinate)?

In KR mostly we consider relation and attribute to be equivalent, i.e., just a
relation (and property as a relation). I know there are some stumbling over
this terminology, mainly because some of it comes from math/logic, some from KR
(both frame- and description logic systems have different terminology), some
from other communities. I think you are considering "attributes" as somehow
more tightly connected to an object than the relations it enters into with
other objects, but that might really be an illusion. There may be more of a
tendency to consider relations as somehow more evanescent or transitory
(predicates or predications) than attributes (attributions), but there are
problems with that.


Danny Ayers wrote:

> >I don't think it is naive at all.
> That's a relief ;-)
> In fact, your suggestion is similar to
> >decoy's for layering the feature on top of the existing specs.  This is
> >what I will do in the near term; however, the real issue is not
> >"can this be layered on top" but "is it so fundamental, it should be
> >part of the base."
> Hmm - speaking as one who has had several good ideas on what is "...so
> fundamental...", only to have it shown by the good fellow of this list that
> they belong better in layers on top, I would definitely recommend a good
> pause for deliberation... (but it might well be something for the base!)
> Also, if the knowledge representation is incorrect
> >without it (due to what I call "implied subordination") then to be correct
> >it should be part of rdfs.
> Hmm again - I'm going to have to reread the (other) thread, I don't think
> I've really grasped where the implied subordination applies (apart from the
> choice of word 'property'). I can see the triple as having order and/or the
> 3 slots having constraints, but I can't really see how this amounts to
> subordination.
> Cheers,
> Danny.

Dr. Leo Obrst  The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 20:09:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:41 UTC