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

Re: blank predicates

From: Gian Piero Zarri <zarri@noos.fr>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 18:22:22 +0100
To: public-lod@w3.org, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Gian Piero Zarri <gianpzarri@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1ddf223f-bf42-ae57-4d48-3c5232d1d373@noos.fr>
Dear All,

About roles, why don't give a look at NKRL's solutions? A very short 
paper about this is 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221438846_Differentiating_Between_Functional_and_Semantic_Roles_in_a_HighLevel_Conceptual_Data_Modeling_Language; 
something of more developed can be found at 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332407987_Zarri_GP_2019_Functional_and_Semantic_Roles_in_a_High-Level_Knowledge_Representation_Language_Artificial_Intelligence_Review_AIRE_514_537-575

Regards, G.P. Zarri


Le 28/03/2020 à 15:31, KANZAKI Masahide a écrit :
> Hi Melvin,
>
> Maybe a role model / n-ary relationship would work here.
>
> In schema.org, 'Role' was introduced sometime ago [1] that generalize
> n-ary relationship with repeated property. e.g
>
> :Alice schema:relatedTo [
> schema:roleName "friend" ;
> schema:relatedTo :Bob ].
>
> You may want to assign a generic role name first, and then update the
> value when you have more specific idea.
>
> In Japan Search [2], we use "dual" properties approach [3] that
> combines the above n-ary structure and simple property, e.g.
>
> :Alice schema:relatedTo :Bob ;
> dc:relation [jps:relationType role:friend ;
> jps:value :Bob ].
>
> It might be read as a sort of practical way corresponding to RDF* description
>
> <<:Alice schema:relatedTo :Bob>> schema:roleName "friend" .
>
>
> cheers,
>
> [1] http://blog.schema.org/2014/06/introducing-role.html
> [2] https://jpsearch.go.jp/
> [3] https://www.kanzaki.com/works/ld/jpsearch/primer/#sec1-2
>
> 2020年3月28日(土) 23:21 Margaret Warren <mm@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> 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
>
>

-- 
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Received on Saturday, 28 March 2020 17:22:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 28 March 2020 17:22:40 UTC