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

Re: blank predicates

From: Margaret Warren <mm@zeroexp.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 10:17:09 -0400
To: public-lod@w3.org
Message-ID: <86f5029e-30c0-8ff6-44aa-4c2b10a51d05@zeroexp.com>
Hello:

When describing  images with imagesnippets and we build the descriptions 
(image/scene graphs) with triples -- we try to use one of the 11 
relations we have designated as the Lightweight Image Ontology.

Occasionally - I want to create a triple, because I know I will want to 
semantically search and reason over the subject/object entitis later, 
but one of those 11 relations is not exactly right.

While it's not perfect - I will sometimes just use lio:isRelatedTo in 
our namespace as a relation placeholder until Pat (Hayes) and I review 
it later along with other places I have used it to see if it deserves a 
more descriptive relation.

I call it a crap relation because it doesn't have any real meaning other 
than to say there is a relation between the two entities.

Best,

Margaret


On 3/28/2020 8:07 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
Received on Saturday, 28 March 2020 14:17:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 28 March 2020 14:17:29 UTC