Re: blank predicates

yup - really just invent a property for it

or say nothing by not adding a triple

unless you have some kind of idea how the things are sort-of related then
the triple adds literally no information



On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 10:19, Claus Stadler <
cstadler@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:

> <> is a relative IRI with an empty string relative to some base IRI - so
> Linked Data clients will typically replace it with the file:// or
> http(s):// URL of the document they read from.
>
> So don't use that, unless you want location-dependent predicates :)
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Claus
>
>
> On 28.03.20 11:03, Melvin Carvalho 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?
>>>
>> --
> Dipl. Inf. Claus Stadler
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
> Research Group: http://aksw.org/
> Workpage & WebID: http://aksw.org/ClausStadler
> Phone: +49 341 97-32260
>
>