Richard --

Actually, I think you may have put your finger on a general problem.....

The general problem is, deductions that seem OK in RDF-ish notation are sometimes OK in English, and sometimes absurd.

There's a nice example from John Sowa about this:  Clyde is an elephant, elephant is a species, therefore Clyde is a species.  That's wrong in English, but there are ways of writing it in RDF/OWL that look OK.

It's a simple example, and RDF/OWL experts can probably avoid the pitfall.  However, it's a real danger for more complex real-world uses.

This topic is discussed in detail, and a solution is offered, in the "Semantic Web Presentation" at .

HTH,  -- Adrian

                                           INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC
Dr. Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029


At 10:27 AM 5/20/04 +0100, you wrote:
I was wondering if this is at all possible.
I have a triple:
Class1 dc:relation  Class2
Such that there is a relation between Class1 and Class2 - and while there are/could be more refinements
of the property dc:relation, say for the sake of arguments they are not correct in this particular usage.  Is it then possible to add a property to the property, a particular comment.
Class1 dc:relation Class2
dc:relation comment blahblah
Perhaps those triples are wrong, I just don't know.
And how would I reprresent this in various manifestations of RDF (N3, (R,P,V) and RDF/XML)?
Many thnaks
Richard Lennox