Re: Troublesome relations

Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> However, even then I don't see any impediment to representing this 
>> trinary
>> relationship as
>>
>>     _:a rdf:type ex:marriage .
>>     _:a ex:groom ex:John .
>>     _:a ex:bride ex:Sally .
>>     _:a ex:dog ex:Fido .
...
> 
> Right, Peter, and (I am agreeing that) this is just how n-ary relations 
> have to be represented in RDF.  From my point of view,

What with all the words being used in this thread I thought I was 
missing something and this wasn't really simply about how to represent 
n-ary relations in RDF :-), but if it is just that old question, I 
suggest that when people answer it, they include a pointer to the following:

     http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/

     Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web: Use With Individuals
     (currently W3C Working Draft of 21 July 2004)

by the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group. That 
writeup probably both gives the common solution and goes into more 
detail about it than you probably care to in a one-off mail.

Cheers,
- Benja