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

Re: Placing a comment on a relationship?!

From: Richard Lennox <listserve@richardlennox.net>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:45:15 +0100
Message-ID: <00b901c43e70$b0ed0880$373ea8c0@lennox>
To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Placing a comment on a relationship?!


>
> 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.
> >
>
Not necessarily a single thing can have relations to many things and using
many different types of relation hence a graph could have

C1 dc:relation_1 C2
C1 dc:relation_2 C3
C1 dc:relation_3 C4

Defining all subProperties of all possible relations would not be possible
and expecting non-tehcnical users to create their own "subPropertiesOf"
would probably be unfeasible.
Perhaps the intended triple is:

(c1 dc:relation C2) x:comment "blah blah"  .

From what I understand reification is a way to do it but it is very verbose
(especially in RDF/XML)

Cheers
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2004 10:02:17 GMT

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