- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:18:02 +0200
- To: "Max Völkel" <voelkel@fzi.de>
- Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Heiko Haller" <hhaller@fzi.de>
On 8/7/06, Max Völkel <voelkel@fzi.de> wrote: [handy background snipped] > When the same "knowing" from a to c is occurring, use the same x. > If a knows c in two different ways, use two different URIs. > > e.g. > (a,x,c) > (x, rdfs:subPropertyOf, foaf:knows) > (a,y,c) > (y, rdfs:subPropertyOf, foaf:knows) Interesting idea, a separate URI per statement but nearer the bone than reification. But I think it starts to fall down here: > an then we can add > x hasHappendenIn :Kindergarten > and they got sepratated and years later they met again > y hasHappendedIn :HighSchool > - you get the example I hope. Treating the properties as instances feels like a road to breakage - presumably it won't be OWL DL for starters. > What do you think about the idea to reify triples as unique property > URIs? Has this been discussed elsewhere? I can't remember seeing this particular approach. If it did work, you would have to come up with a good way of minting a lot of URIs, which reminds me - can we have bnodes for properties yet? bnodes for (a-)named graphs? Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 15:18:11 UTC