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.com