W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Placing a comment on a relationship?!

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:34:51 -0400
Message-ID: <40ACB3FB.6020801@comcast.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Richard Lennox wrote:
> Yes it would be plausible to set up refinements of dc:relation (I think
> thats what you mean)
> ie. x:isTranslationOf rdfs:subPropertyOf dc:relation
> 
> however there are those relations that I will not be able to define (as I
> could never get every concievable relation) so the default would be:
> C1 dc:relationC2
> 
> Thus an additional comment on the relation woul be nice to describe it in
> some textual way.  It follows the same problem of
> C1 my:relation C2
> C3 my:relation C4
> my:relation x:comment "blah blah" if rthe comment is only for that
> particular relation.
> 

The idea would be that each statement uses a different instance of the 
property.  You might have to simulate that by using unique subproperties -

C1 my:relation_1 C2
C3 my:relation_2 C4

my:relation_1 subPropertyOf dc:relation
my:relation_2 subpropertyOf dc:relation

You don't have to further constrain these properties, so they could all 
"mean" the same thing.

Or maybe you could just type them as instances - someone who knows the 
semantics better would be able to say more about this - i.e.

my:relation_1 rdfs:type dc:relation
my:relation_2 rdfs:type dc:relation

Either way, you would only use a given one of these predicates once in a 
given graph.

Cheers,

Tom P
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:34:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:07 GMT