Re: Can't RDF describe collection resources?

On 01/03/12 08:28, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Dear Semantic Web enthousiasts,
>
> Suppose we have a Web application for blogging:
> - /posts/35 is a blog post
> - /posts/35/comments are the comments to that post
> - /posts/35/comments/3 is a specific comment to this post
>
> In RDF, it is straightforward to make the relation between the blog post and a specific comment:
>    </posts/35>  :hasComment</posts/35/comments/3>.
> It is also easy to describe the relation between a specific comment and all comments:
>    </posts/35/comments/4>  :memberOf</posts/35/comments>.
>
> However, how do we indicate the relationship between the blog post and *all* comments that belong to it?
> I.e., what is the relationship between</posts/35>  and</posts/35/comments>  ?
>
> One could make a new predicate for that of course:
>    </posts/35/>  :hasComments</posts/35/comments>.
> But then, we still have to explain the relation between :hasComments and :hasComment; and we’d have to do that for every such plural predicate.
>
> This seems to be a fundamental problem.

I think you are correct. You cannot have a resource be both a class and 
an individual, and have a logical relation between the two, if that is 
what you want.

See e.g. http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Punning.

Martin

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 08:57:23 UTC