Jonas Liljegren wrote: > > Dan Brickley wrote: > > Some RDF might say: "the eyecolour of the hairdresser of my boss's niece > > is brown". This is a (perhaps!) useful piece of information that we might > > exchange using XML and RDF. Or "the price of my boss's car". In both > > cases, the RDF statements would be anchored to resources using URIs at > > some point, eg. a person: URI for the speaker. > > > > [person:uk:nx9300001]--boss--> [ ] ---niece--> [ ] ---hairdresser--> [ ] --eyecol-> "brown" > > [person:uk:nx9300001]--boss--> [ ] --price--> "30,000 ukp" > > Good example! > > So we should look at them as unknown URIs, and talk about them as thus. > > Could this be integrated with a general way to present RDF queries? sure, that is a great way of writing a query. And by the way, I agree with Sergey, pointing out that there is not fundamental difference beetween anonymous resources and ID'ed resources (that is, resources with rdf:ID instead of rdf:about). If we read this as a query, ID'ed resources could be the resources to be returned, while really anonymous resources are just here to add constraints. But what if this is to be read as a statement ?? What if I read both statements [person:uk:nx9300001]--boss--> [person:uk:nx9300002]--car--> [vehicle:uk:ABC1234] [person:uk:nx9300001]--boss--> []--car--> []--price--> "30,000 ukp" if I know that I (nx9300001) have only one boss, and that person:uk:nx9300002 has only one car, then I can infer [vehicle:uk:ABC1234]--price--> "30,000 ukp", but that's a lot of IFs ! And neither property-value-unicity nor node-unification are adressed by RDF recommandation. That's a really interesting point, but still a big issue, IMHO Pierre-AntoineReceived on Monday, 13 December 1999 07:50:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:21 UTC