- From: Chris Dollin <chris.dollin@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 07:26:30 +0100
- To: Jitao Yang <jitao.yang@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Thursday 20 May 2010 11:32:37 pm Jitao Yang wrote: > > > > > some:p eh:assertion _blanknode1 ; > > > > > _blanknode1 eh:on some:d ; > > > > > _blanknode1 eh:value some:o ; > > > > > some:p eh:assertion _blanknode2 ; > > > > > _blanknode2 eh:on some:d1 ; > > > > > _blanknode2 eh:value some:o1 . > > > > > > > > What I mean is based on the above representation, > > The connections are there: > > > > P assertion [on D; value O] > > > > encodes the formula > > > > DescPr(D, P, O). > > > we can not reason that the value of p is o. Not using RDFS reasoning, no. Nor OWL reasoning. I didn't think that was called for; we were originally talking about /representing/ formulae in RDF, without any requirement that we be able to deduce -- using RDFS/OWL reasoning -- that from P assertion [on D; value O] we be able to deduce (D P O). Did I misunderstand? > The above representation is a RDF reification, do think so? No. Firstly, it doesn't use the reification predicates. Second, even if it did, it's asymmetric -- the predicate P is the subject of the RDF statement and the arguments D and O are embedded in the object of that statement -- and RDF reification is symmetric -- the S P O of a reified statement R are all values of properties of R. -- RDF is not /the/ answer. RDF is /an/ answer. - Arcadian Epimorphics Ltd Registered address: C/O Robson Taylor, Froomsgate House, Bristol Registered number: 7016688
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 06:28:15 UTC