- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:06:45 -0800
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > Are, in your opinion, the following RDF piece, equivalent ?? > > Example 1: > > <rdf:Description about="#d1" xmlns:my="http://schemas.org/"> > <my:prop rdf:id="s1"> Foo </my:prop> > </rdf:Description> > <rdf:Description about="#s1"/> > <my:prop> Bar </my:prop/> > </rdf:Description> > > Example 2: > > <rdf:Description about="#d1" xmlns:my="http://schemas.org/"> > <my:prop> Foo </my:prop> > </rdf:Description> > <rdf:Statement id="s1"> > <rdf:subject resource="#d1"/> > <rdf:predicate resource="http://schemas.org/prop"/> > <rdf:object> Foo </rdf:object> > </rdf:Statement> > <rdf:Description about="#s1"/> > <my:prop> Bar </my:prop/> > </rdf:Description> Example 1 is an extensional representation of the prop-->foo arc; it designates explicitly by URI. Example 2 is an intensional representation of the arc; it gives a criteria for selection. In the M&S data model, I believe, they map to the same diagram. In my mentography they map to different diagrams. See [Arc to Arc]. In any case their illative effect is equivalent. However, I note that the extensional representation may have some interesting uses, that are more difficult with the other method. [Arc to Arc] http://robustai.net/mentography/arcarc.jpg Seth Russell
Received on Sunday, 3 December 2000 12:03:53 UTC