- From: Jeff Sussna <jeff.sussna@quokka.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:47:05 -0800
- To: "'R.van.Dort@Everest.nl'" <R.van.Dort@Everest.nl>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
You can of course model such relations on top of RDF. The primary thing you lose is schema validation, since you've now created a new abstract model on top of and separate from RDF's. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: R.van.Dort@Everest.nl [mailto:R.van.Dort@Everest.nl] Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 2:21 AM To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org Subject: RDF data model: too flat? Working with the basic RDF model I get the feeling that the RDF data model is too flat. One of the aspects that has a contradiction with the world around us is that in RDF there is (speaking in terms of frame based theory) only one type of slot: Property. In real world we see objects or things (RDF: Resources) with attributes and relations between objects. Attributes are dependent on their objects in which they are contained, in a (binary) relation two objects are independent in existence but connected. For example the weight, color of the eyes and day of birth are typically attributes of a Person instance; the father, mother, spouse, car and bank account are independent objects related to a certain Person. I would make a plea for a second type of slot in the RDF model: Relation or BinaryRelation. I think that my suggestion is close to the CKML fundamentals, maybe the CKML model would be the outcome when we think things all over.
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2000 14:40:43 UTC