Re: use cases

Hi Paola

I think, that RDF is capable of expressing complex clauses by making a 
complete clause into the object (or subject) of an assertion.  By using a 
'blank node' you can make pretty complex statements that would definitely 
annoy your English prof.  But here I'm out of my depth and I'll defer to 
others.  I do agree, it can get messy, and I'm interested to see what others 
have to say on this subject re best practices for representing complex 

Hm - unfortunately the Best Practices working Group is closed

- is it really all worked out already?  The closest doc I can find is

but that doesn't quite fill the bill here...


On Sunday 03 February 2008 9:56, wrote:
> Golda
> I am still learning about RDF,
> Let me give you my take, so that others may correct me.
> Based on what I read so far, I believe that RDF is not designed to support 
> complex statements of natural language, although I am sure ways around can 
> be found, albeit 'not elegant'
> Most natural languages have developed to support sophisticated reasoning and 
> logic
> They have done by allowing for two classes 'simple clauses' (subject 
> predicate object), which can stand alone, and can be supported by RDF 
> nicely, and 'complex clause's, which are formalisms to express more 
> structured and less linear logical relationships, they depend on a simple 
> clause to make sense, like the examples that you give  (the second part of 
> your sentence is a relative clause, either coordinate or subordinate
> see the diagram below
> <Which> leads to is a subordinate, relative clause, meaning: cannot stand on 
> its own,
> it needs another simple sentence to hang from.
> Such structure is not supported by RDF
> So, If I were obliged to use RDF to do this, I would use
> - with a chain of triples, and assign arbitrary values to each triple
> <which> could be a predicate, for example in current RDF syntax, because 
> predicates can be
> 'absolutely antying'. From a design and natural language perspective, IMHO 
> this is not robust nor elegant nor efficient
> or
> allow RDF to express n'tuple (not just three values statements) assigning as 
> many predicates and as many objects as your sentence statement requires - 
> equally messy.
> My suggestion would be:  augment and evolve RDF syntax to support 
> subordinate clauses more complex grammatical structures as illustarted above
> This can be easily and quickly done, and would solve the problem
> we just need to update the RDF spec a bit
> If I have to use the grammatical structure of a simple sentence to expresse 
> complex sentences, is like
> trying to express modern literature using the language spoken by Neanderthal
> Nothing wrong with it, but not adequate to the evolutionary stage
> Please let me know where I am wrong
> cheers
> Paola Di Maio
> > ------------------
> > How do I find the right vocabulary to express this statement?  And for 
> > others
> > to agree and disagree with it, what is the best way to give it its own URI 
> > or
> > other identifier so other statements can be made about this statement?
> >
> > I think that in the mucky real world, making and responding to statements 
> > of
> > this type of complexity would be useful.  Should we just stick to English 
> > or
> > our other native tongue?
> >
> > --Golda
> >
> >

Received on Monday, 4 February 2008 07:34:40 UTC