- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:22:25 -0500
- To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Cc: "Tom Van Eetvelde" <tom.van_eetvelde@alcatel.be>, "RDF interest group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: Graham Klyne wrote:
> At 09:15 AM 11/2/00 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > For the type of work we wish to do it is essential that properties
be
> >assigned to classes.
...
> > You point out the distinction between a statement made about a class
and
> >a statement made about the reified statements of a class. Perhaps these
> >statements can be modelled as a Bag and assigned an ID.
>
> In a sense, that is almost what happens with contexts as I see them. (See
> below)
Yes I agree.
> >
> >Assuming we agree that the second statement captures the intent, is this
an
> >acceptable solution?
>
> My interpretation of the second statement is that it says the *bag*
> containing the statements that define a [FordEscort] is defined by
> [FordMotorCompany]. My goal is to make that assertion about the (reified)
> statements themselves. (Consider, there may be another bag defined by
> another party containing some of the same statements.) The nearest thing
> in the RDF spec is <Description 'aboutEach=...'>, but I find that lacks a
> corresponding representation in the RDF abstract model.
And this is the problem. As much as it is good to keep the model as
simple as is possible, the model needs to model the --isa--> chain properly.
Part of this is the 'inheritance' of property values in a fashion similar to
the way an object instance might 'inherit' const values defined as members
of the class. Usually these const values can be static or class members. So
the question is, how is this best modelled in RDF?
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2000 13:34:13 UTC