W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:57:36 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd1001141657j2c9c86fbv5b4e48e475346527@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
2010/1/14 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>:

> I periodically wonder what an RDF without the binary restriction would
> look like.
>
> Would each property/relation have a fixed arity, eg. dc:source might
> 'be a 4', 'foaf:knows' a 7? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So
> presumably they'd vary freely. In which case, we have a lot of
> figuring out to do when wondering whether   livesWith(alice, bob,
> 2007, 'y') implies livesWith(alice,bob) or livesWith(alice, bob, 'y',
> 'foo.html'). The binary straightjacket makes some of these questions
> impossible, albeit maddeningly...

beh, two binaries make...er, another binary pair living together in harmony...

not sure it's a good idea spec-wise, but it would be fun to see RDF go
total n-ary

can RIF help with danbri's scenario above?

(and please introduce me to Alice, she's always more interesting than Bob)
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 00:58:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:04 UTC