- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 16:12:32 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- CC: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>, Wraf development <rdf@uxn.nu>, RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > One of my reasons for using contexts is that it gives me a framework for > making statements that do not depend on detailed ontological > structure. Thus, in the 1st example you cite, I know that my car has an > engine and a body without necessarily knowing how they are ontologically > related to the car as a whole, and I can make meaningful statements about them. Interesting point. Actually, I too had problems with the Car example, but that makes sense... I have another idea since a few days, which may be an alternate solution : the use of "anonymous" resources (which mean for me: I know there is a resource here, but I don't know its URI). We can use anonymous resources as subject or object of a statement. Why not as the predicate ?? [my:Car] --[ ]--> [my:Engine] I have a car, I have an engine, I know there is a relation between them, but I have no word for that... what do you RDFers think of that ? Pierre-Antoine > > >One example says, in part: > > > > [MyCar] --isa--> [FordEscort] > > [ ] --rdfc:asserts--> > > { > > [TheBody] ----color-----> "red" > > [TheEngine] --capacity--> "1600cc" > > } > > > > > >The normal way to do this would be: > > > > S1: [my:Car] --type--> [FordEscort] > > S2: [my:Car] --body--> [my:Body] > > S3: [my:Body] --color--> [red] > > S4: [my:Car] --engine--> [my:Engine] > > S5: [my:Engine] --capacity--> [my:Capacity] > > S6: [my:Capacity] --unit--> [cc] > > S7: [my:Capacity] --value--> "1600" > > By comparison, this form of description requires that the ontological > relationship between the components is known.
Received on Friday, 24 November 2000 10:20:23 UTC