Re: Possible Idea For a Sem Web Based Game?

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:05:12 +0100
Melvin Carvalho <> wrote:

> > The way I've written this client, the nodes themselves can extend
> > the pre-defined link directions:
> >
> >        <#node1> <#hide-under-rug> <#node2> .
> >
> >        <#hide-under-rug>
> >                rdfs:label "hide under the rug" ;
> >                rdfs:subPropertyOf game:exit .
> I do like the exits, and think they are all useful and needed.
> However, just thinking that this might not be ideal for scaling wrt
> CYOA.  Every game choice would have to be added to the ontology if we
> used exclusively this technique. 

Not at all - the <#hide-under-rug> predicate above is not part of the
vocabulary at <> - it's been defined in the
same file as <#node1> and <#node2>. That seems to be a pretty scalable/
distributed way of doing things.

<> itself doesn't need to define the exit
predicates like north, south, etc - it could rely on them to be defined
externally, in the same files as the nodes. But for convenience, it
predefines a few common exit points.

> Forgive my dropping into the conversation to be critical, but in
> <#node1> <#hide-under-rug> <#node2> .
> #hide-under-rug does not seem like a predicate defining the
> relationship between two nodes.

"hide under rug" is not a relationship, no - it's an action.

But <#hide-under-rug> is a relationship because that's the way I've
defined it. Specifically it's the relationship between two nodes such
that the object node is the node that would be reached by hiding under
the rug when the player's current node is the subject node. The fact
that this relationship's URI's fragment ID reads a bit like an action
is of no consequence - URIs are opaque.

Toby A Inkster

Received on Sunday, 21 November 2010 16:56:30 UTC