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

Properties and incremental meaning

From: Dom Vonarburg <dvonarbu@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20041001174353.44228.qmail@web12102.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi everyone,
I am working on a vocabulary but the following issue
keeps bugging me:
What is the best way or best practice for using
properties incrementally in an RDF document, so that
parser applications can choose the degree of meaning
they can or want to understand. I couldn't find any
documents on this topic. Here is an example:
I want to say that resource-1 is related to
<Description rdf:ID="resource-1">
   <relatedTo rdf:resource="resource-2"/>
But now I want to add that resource-2 is really a
child resource of resource-1 (for example), without
forcing the parser application (RDF or non-RDF) to
undertand this new deeper relationship. After defining
hasChild as a sub-property of relatedTo, the most
obvious solution is this:
<Description rdf:ID="resource-1">
   <hasChild rdf:resource="resource-2"/>
But the relationship between relatedTo and hasChild
can only be understood by an RDF parser (and one that
reads the schema). Another solution could be this:
<Description rdf:ID="resource-1">
   <relatedTo rdf:resource="resource-2"/>
   <hasChild  rdf:resource="resource-2"/>
But now, we have two relationships. Another one could
be to insert a blank node to further qualify the
original property and use rdf:value:
<Description rdf:ID="resource-1">
   <relatedTo rdf:parseType="Resource">
      <property  rdf:resource="hasChild"/>
      <rdf:value rdf:resource="resource-2"/>
Are there other alternatives?
Thank you!
Dom Vonarburg

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2004 15:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:53 UTC