On 21/01/07, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > So, I agree with ChrisR: If you feel the need to make statements > about relationships, then maybe the modelling is not adequate to your > use case, and the relationship ought to be turned into a resource of > its own. Some related advice is found in [1]. A caveat on that - it's pretty easy to mess up the modelling with n-ary relations such as when talking about physical quantities, as highlighted by timbl in [2]. Seems to me there are a couple of closely related but different notions getting slightly blurred in this thread: saying things about the single statement { subject, predicate, object } saying things about the predicate in { subject, predicate, object } Whatever's said about the predicate will generally apply wherever the predicate is used (as a coarse analogy, they behave like static variables in OO languages), but that may not be a problem. I believe I'm ok in having: <http://dannyayers.com/pets/neo> a pet:Cat ; foaf:name "Neo" ; x:anotherNameForNeo "Bouncer" . - where that predicate is specialised to the extent that it will only be used with a specific subject individual (I promise). In itself it's a bit obscure to be much use, but if: x:anotherNameForNeo rdfs:subPropertyOf foaf:name . then it may still be useful information in the greater scheme of things. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-swbp-n-aryRelations-20040721/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2006Sep/0117.html -- http://dannyayers.comReceived on Sunday, 21 January 2007 12:54:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:59 UTC