- From: Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:15:59 +0100
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Christopher Welty a écrit :
> The general idea, that the limitation to binary properties in rdf
> requires a workaround that is not required in other languages and
> formats, does not need, IMHO, special treatment in a document that deals
> with RDF. There are a lot of representation formats that naturally
> handle n-ary relations, probably the most important commercially is ER
> diagrams, probably the oldest is good old FOL.
> So I don't think there is a need for an appendix in the n-ary relations
> note for topic maps, because that opens the door to arbitrarily
> extending the note for every other format. If there is a need to
> describe the relationship between the workaround in the n-ary note and
> topic maps, then I think it should be in a note about topic maps and
> there relationship to RDF.
Just to concur with Christopher, my group is using a mapping with
Conceptual Graphs to reason on RDF graphs. In CGs we have n-ary
relations and the mapping is essentially ignoring that feature.
However I don't think n-ary relations in CGs should be mentioned since
the note is focusing on design patterns in RDF/S and OWL.
Fabien.
--
"The plan is nothing, the planning is everything."
-- Sir Winston Churchill.
____________
|__ _ |_ http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/personnel/Fabien.Gandon/
| (_||_) INRIA Sophia Antipolis - ph# (33)(0)4 92 38 77 88
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 16:18:27 UTC