Re: plural vs singular properties (a proposal)

Frank Manola wrote:
> As far as each relation representing a distinct resource...
"Tuple", Frank. I said that "each tuple represents a distinct resource".

I understand your relational design in which there is a different 
relation for each predicate in the graph, each tuple being interpreted 
as a binary relation between RDF triple subject and object. The 
discussion here was about a different relational design (the one with 
Date and his wine bottles) in which each relation header attribute is 
interpreted as an RDF predicate. In analyzing this latter design, I made 
the assumption that each tuple represents a distinct RDF resource---the 
implication being that this design cannot support multivalued RDF 
properties.

You and Bijan have countered that even a relational design that 
interprets relation header attributes as RDF predicates can still 
support multivalued RDF properties because my assumption that each tuple 
represents a distinct resource is invalid; a resource may be represented 
by more than one tuple in the same relation, allowing "repeated 
predicates" by supplying multiple values for the same column in 
different tuples but for a single resource. Something about that smells 
fishy to me, but being unable to articulate exactly what it is I have 
determined to do more studying of the relational model before attempting 
to address that point you both have made.

Does that make sense?

Garret

P.S. In a very early email on this thread I mentioned each relation 
representing a resource, but as I pointed out later, I had actually 
mis-spoke---I had meant a single relation for each resource *type* of 
resource (with each tuple representing a resource).