Re: How to state simple facts in RDF

* Michael F. Uschold
| Rdf:type is fine for many such examples.

It does seem to work, and work well, in some of the cases, I agree.
| However, it is not always such a good idea to create special
| classes/types for every such fact.
| For example: 
| 	My car is red.
| 	This food tastes good.
| To use rdf:type food these statements requires one to create
| artificial classes/types for such notions as RedThings, or
| GoodTastingThings.
| One can do it, but it is not always what you want.

I agree, and the RDFTM work is one case where this isn't really what
we want, since although it works to turn

  is-bankrupt(barings-bank : company) /* LTM syntax */


  (barings-bank, rdf:type, BankruptCompany)

this causes difficulties with roundtripping back to topic maps, since
we can't then easily distinguish between types that are "real types"
and types that really represent "unary associations".

Does anyone know of other good modelling patterns for this in RDF? Or
do we need to create a special
rdftm:ArtificialClassThatIsReallyAUnaryAssociationType class?

Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: >

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 13:09:11 UTC