- From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:03:01 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Garret, I saw an ontology just recently that set out to do what you want. Check out http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2007/07/19/powder_update Not sure how well accepted it is, but I think it does what you want. On 1 Aug 2007, at 10:24, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > On 1 Aug 2007, at 02:57, Garret Wilson wrote: >> I'm creating an ontology in which it is useful to identify "any >> resource". That is, let's say that I want to specify to which >> resource a particular <eg:Rule> applies. I can specify (let me try >> my hand at N3 here); >> >> [] a eg:Rule; >> eg:appliesTo <urn:uuid:92f01109-e08e-4ac2-b0d4-b13f65ba7595> >> >> That means that the rules applies to some identified resource. But >> is there any convention for identifying "any resource"? I see >> several options: > > That's why we have blank nodes. > > [] a eg:Rule; > eg:appliesTo [ a rdfs:Resource ]; > . > > This says that the rule applies to "anything that has rdf:type > rdfs:Resource". > I don't think so Richard. That says that the rule applies to some thing that has type rdfs:Resource. You need N3 quantification to work on every rule. > Since, in fact, *everything* is of type rdfs:Resource, this is > redundant, and can be stated simply as > > [] a eg:Rule; > eg:appliesTo []; > . > > "This rule applies to anything." No: "This rule applies to something" very different > > The nice thing about this is that you can do things like: > > [] a eg:Rule; > eg:appliesTo [ a foaf:Person; foaf:name "Garret" ]; > .
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 09:03:09 UTC