W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2020

Re: blank predicates

From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 11:10:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE35VmxhAmivrcbaxJVm=Uq-gYd6qjB0gQ8yozRHDpCZUaEsxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
How about reification:

[] a rdf:Statement ;
    rdf:subject <#Alice> ;
    rdf:object <#Bob> .

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 11:05 AM Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 10:53, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> there are an infinite number of boring relationships that hold between any arbitrary pair of objects; your best bet might be to name one for your application rather than attempt to use generalized (predicateless) rdf
>
>
> So maybe simply <> ?
>
> #Alice <> #Bob .
>
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 08:57, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am working on a information mapping system (aka mind maps)
>>>
>>> And I want to have two nodes related to each other
>>>
>>> #Alice R #Bob
>>>
>>> In the general sense, the type of relationship (predicate) R is not really known at the time of creation.  My software currently does not allow the labeling of edges is the reason (but hopefully in future it will)
>>>
>>> I need a way to relate Alice to Bob but I dont have a URI for a predicate.
>>>
>>> Is there something that can operate as a "blank predicate"?
>>>
>>> Or some existing relations that simply says that two entities or linked / related, without yet knowing how they are related?
Received on Saturday, 28 March 2020 10:10:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 28 March 2020 10:10:33 UTC