Re: Time for quintuples?

On 10-09-26 23:09, Bob Ferris wrote:
>
> ex:ACC a cco:CognitiveCharacteristic ;
>     cco:agent ex:ww ;
>     cco:characteristic cco:belief ;
>     cco:topic ex:ATopic ;
>     wo:weight [
>         a wo:Weight ;
>         wo:weight_value 0.12 ;
>         wo:scale ex:AScale
>         ] ;
>     cco:activity <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Thinking> .
> 
> ex:ATopic {
>     ex:bob cco:skill <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Football_(soccer)>
> }    # here the semantics are getting a bit arguable
> 
> ex:AnotherCC a cco:CognitiveCharacteristic ;
>     cco:agent ex:bob ;
>     cco:characteristic cco:skill ;
>     cco:topic http://dbpedia.org/resource/Football_(soccer)> ;
>     cco:weight [
>         a wo:Weight ;
>         wo:weight_value 0.06 ;
>         wo:scale ex:AScale
>         ] ;
>     cco:activity
> <http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rwJRiEpwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA> .
> 
> ex:AScale a wo:Scale ;
>    wo:min_weight 0.0 ;
>    wo:max_weight 9.0 ;
>    wo:step_size 0.1 .
> 
> Would you agree with that modelling?

Yes, it is a reasonable approach. I don't disagree with it.

I think that notation-wise, perhaps nested graphs are a
bit clearer to read than using reification. It might be worth
considering why you had to make resource to referring to a
graph for the object of a belief. And if you start talking
about beliefs about beliefs maybe the shape will start being
more and more like nested graphs.

OTOH nested graphs might be controversial and are not well
supported.

(I also don't particularly see why graphs, (ex:ATopic) have to
be explicitly named, they could just as well be anonymous (named
with a blank node) but that's a different discussion.)

Cheers,
-w
-- 
William Waites                       <ww@styx.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965
Fax: +44 131 464 4948
CD70 0498 8AE4 36EA 1CD7  281C 427A 3F36 2130 E9F5