Re: Higher-arity to RDF binary

2010/5/19 Chris Dollin <chris.dollin@epimorphics.com>

> On Wednesday 19 May 2010 01:39:52 pm Jitao Yang wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > In reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/,
> > suppose we define:
> > "... the formula DescPr(*d, p, o*) , asserting that object o is a value
> of
> > property p in description *d*. ..."
> >
> > and we have:
> > DescPr(*d, p, o*)
> > DescPr(*d', p, o'*)
> >
> > the above formula could be represented by RDF like:
> >
> > :d
> >        a                           :DescPr_description ;
> >        :has_property       :p .
> >
> > :d'
> >        a                            :DescPr_description ;
> >        :has_property        :p .
> >
> > :p
> >        a                          :DescPr_property ;
> >        :has_value           :o ;
> >         :has_value           :o' .
> >
> > >From these triples how can we go back in a unique way to the logical
> > representation.
>
> I don't think you can, and I think that's because it's not a good
> representation (and vice-versa).
>
> I wasn't sure which bit of http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/
> you were comparing/contrasting to.
>


I reference to case1 and case3 together from
http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/,
what is your idea of representing the formula using RDF?
So that the triples can go back to the logical representation?

Thanks,
Jitao


> --
> RDF is not /the/ answer. RDF is /an/ answer.                         -
> Arcadian
>
> Epimorphics Ltd
> Registered address: C/O Robson Taylor, Froomsgate House, Bristol
> Registered number:  7016688
>
>