- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:14:51 +0200
- To: " - *Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: " - *www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi Dan, You are right, I'm always too lazy to give some context. If a, c and d are nodes and b and d are arcs, and if [thing] --association--> [otherThing] is expressing an association, then a --b--> c --d--> e [a --b--> c] --d--> e a --b--> [c --d--> e] can mean totally different things, isn't it? So using flat models is only part of the game. My question is: how is this handled in all these new strawman proposals? I am aware of such mechanisms as RDF reification and I think it is a good way to go (we experienced that in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler and so on). I also think that anonymous (non IDfied) things should be allowed (one could for instance use logical formulas to do a lot of meaningful things with them (such as proving some of their properties)). Is there an alternative for RDF reification? I could think of using RDF + XLink (to point to the associated subgraphs (in an XML flat model notation)) for that, but I'm not sure I want to have that. Jos De Roo --- AGFA
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 04:15:26 UTC