- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 07:48:23 -0800
- CC: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > The reason is to distinguish between different _uses_ of a property: > [SomeCity] --properName--> "Boston" > and > [me] --properName--> "Graham" > are two different instances of "properName". The only way I know in RDF to > distinguish them is through reification. Well in the case of two different instances of a properName, Im thinking of doing it as follows. Take the example of your calling me "Seth Russell" but my 11 year old son calls me Popa. So the RDF triples end up being: [me] properName "Seth Russell" [me] properName "Popa" The question (i think you raise) is how does one name show up in one context and not another. Well, in my implementation of the RDF graph I add another element, turning the triple into a quad as follows: [C1] [me] properName "Seth Russell" [C2] [me] properName "Popa" Where [Cn] is just a node of type context. In fact such a node would be no different than your "container class" [1] but would be instantuated by the extra quad above rather than as objects of the property "--rdfc:quotes-->". The context nodes would form a hierarchy over a property (probably the inverse of rdfc:member) very much like a class hierarchy. There would be another set of properties (say rdfc:vocab) hanging off the context nodes that would point to words. Following the context tree upward for inheritance and downward to a set of vocabulary, we could always evaluate any context node to a set of words. That set of words is what would be presented to the user as the definition of the context. The user interface would allow for navigating these word sets. You can easily see how, as the context nodes are navigated, different assertions will show up. In the example above, when I have selected [C2] and am seeing the vocabulary set {Jason, Pokemon, Mom, school, GameBoy } in the context window, I would automatically expect [me] to be called "Popa". Look ma, no reification! Does that make sense? Can you think of a case where this contrivance would not work? How would you do it? [1] http://public.research.mimesweeper.com/RDF/RDFContexts.html#3.1.3.1Ageneralcontainerforsetsofresources|outline Seth Russell
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2000 10:47:22 UTC