- From: Eric Hellman <eric@openly.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:41:07 -0500
- To: Jeff Sussna <jeff.sussna@quokka.com>, martin <martin@csi.forth.gr>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 9:04 AM -0800 1/28/00, Jeff Sussna wrote: >Seems like there might be another solution. This solution begins to step >away from "orthodox" RDF and points to taking first-class properties >seriously. It involves making the property an object in its own right. In >other words, rather than saying "x is identified by y" and "y identifies x", >one would say something along the lines of >"instance-of-identification-property connects x and y". And in fact, that's exactly what we did, but we still wanted to have reciprocal properties between the link object and the node objects. I like martin's idea of having a single property name for both directions. I think you can do it with the current RDFS, although when you have multiple range and domain classes you get less validation. Eric > >Jeff > >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Hellman [mailto:eric@openly.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 7:46 PM >To: martin; www-rdf-interest@w3.org >Subject: Re: assymetric reference of properties > > >We encountered the same situation in our linking metadata schema. A >lot of code was expended making sure that we don't get stuck in >endless loops while traversing models with these reciprocal >relationships- probably its a good excuse to keep the "inverse" >property out of rdfs. But I certainly agree that it's a needed >facility at some level. > >Eric Eric Hellman Openly Informatics, Inc. http://www.openly.com/ 21st Century Information Infrastructure LinkBaton: Your Shortcuts to Information http://linkbaton.com/
Received on Friday, 28 January 2000 14:41:16 UTC