Re: RDF lists/arrays and n-ary relations [was Re: OWL and RDF lists]

Hi Peter,

Le Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 10:42:56AM -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
> > alone would make any sense, for "e" and "1" have to stick together in
> > a tuple for the position to exist / be defined.
> 
> Actually the e and the 1 do not have to stick together at all. The first of
> the neithers is saying that the white king is at something that has position
> letter e.   (Again ignoring whether this is a good way of representing chess
> pieces, chess boards, and chess positions.)  This is a reasonable thing to
> say and, although not as common as providing a full position description,
> certainly could come up as information to represent and transmit.  One very
> good reason to use RDF is to allow for this sort of incomplete description.

Hmm. Don't we have numbers and strings in RDF ?

When you say "the e and the 1 do not have to stick together at all", I
understand the following. Is it what you mean ?

"""
You want to write 

   :me :age 9.876e+01

but it is perfectly fine to write

   :me :age_tens 9
   :me :age_units 8
   :me :age_fraction 76

You want to write

   :me :name "Bob"

but it is perfectly fine to write

   :me :name :_letter1
   :_letter1 rdf:first "B"
   :_letter1 rdf:rest :_letter2
   :_letter2 rdf:first "o"
   :_letter2 rdf:rest :_letter3
   :_letter3 rdf:first "b"
   :_letter3 rdf:rest rdf:nil
"""

Why allow numbers and strings that are compounds of numerals and
letters, but not allow compounds of numbers and strings as in a chess
position ("e", 1) or a complex number with an imaginary part 2-3i <=>
(2, -3) ?

-- 
Nicolas Chauvat

logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de connaissances

Received on Friday, 30 September 2022 17:49:55 UTC