- 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