Re: modelling issue?

.Pat
thanks for replies
the whole thing started me trying to identify the domain ranges, I think I
have slightly a better idea now alghough a whole load of other
issues have come out
Will seek advice further when I get back to this exercise (working on other
at the mo)
cheers
PDM



and V briefly

re. subject cannot be anything else in triple, I am sure I have heard it at
least twice, but again it could be a communication issue
let me recheck

re. ORGANISATION, actually this diagram is still a draft outline, certainly
the naming of things and relation is still up in the air - would have to
check
against the use cases, will get back



> That takes me to the 'concatenation question' - is it true that a thing
> that is a subject in a triple cannot be
> anything else in another triple in the same vocabulary?
>
>
> No, that is not true. Any URI can be used in any position in any triple in
> any ontology. It is fine for it to be the subject of one and the object (or
> even the property) of another.
>
> If so, how can we concatenate and/or merge vocabularies (apologies if the
> question is too big/open)
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> So, to sum up, after realising that we can use RDF equall to triplify
>>
>> ORGANISATION   HAS     CONTACDETAILS
>> (class)                   rel        (class)
>>
>>
>> This says that the HAS relationship holds between the actual classes, not
>> between the elements of the classes. Is this really what you intend to say?
>>
>
> in the example above  yes
>
>
> Hmm. So you are saying that the actual class called ORGANISATION - that is
> one single class - bears the relation called REL to one other single thing,
> also a class, called CONTACDETAILS. So there are exactly two things being
> referred to here, and their status as classes is irrelevant. Is this really
> correct? To push the point home: nothing would follow from this about any
> particular organization having anything. It does not follow from this that a
> member of the class ORGANISATION has a contact detail. Is that right?
>
> , the example below I am looking at the stuff in the box (relation between
> the class and its elements)
>
>
> but also
>
> ORGANISATION     IS        OFTYPE
>
>
> A 'type'  is a class, actually. Being in the class = having the type, just
> a different form of words. RDF actually uses the word "rdf:type" to relate a
> class member/instance to its class. So a TYPE of organizations is a subclass
> of the class ORGANIZATION, the class of all organizations.
>
>
> or
> ORGANISATION     HAS    WEBSITE
>
>
> Again, that sounds to me like it is intended to be saying that every
> organization in ORGANISATION has a website. If this is about the class, it
> says that there is a *single* website for *all* organizations, or maybe for
> the class called ORGANISATION.
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>
>
>
> is this 'versatility' of using RDF in the same way for either/both
>
> a) what is referred to as an RDF weakness?
> b) never been thought of as a problem when modelling data?
> c) related to the intensional /extensional discussion referred to as above?
>
> PDM
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio
**************************************************
Networked Research Lab, UK

***************************************************