- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 12:59:14 +0100
- To: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
While working on a graph visualisation app, I've run into a problem that suggests a generic solution but I haven't been able to figure out the best approach, so I was hoping for suggestions. The specific case is that I have a graph described in RGML [1] which I want to display. RGML has a Node class, and label property (string literal), so there is no problem giving a visual representation of a node a label. The immediate problem is I want to be able to say that this node in the graph represents something else, from which resource I can choose the info that gets displayed. Another problem is that to be able to reason with the information contained in the graph it will not only be necessary to be able to express what each node represents, but also the relationships expressed by the edges in the graph. At first this looks very like it should be achievable using rdf:about or at a pinch rdf:isDefinedBy, though I don't think either of these really convey the same semantics. In general, this is to make the statement that resource A represents B. Turned around to read hasRepresentation makes this look just like a regular property, though such a statement would be associated with the description of B and in cases like that above it would be desirable for the statement to be associated with A. Properties xxx:represents & xxx:hasRepresentation might apply to a lot of cases where resource A provides a view (however incomplete) or model (apologies for the term) of B. Is such a property necessary in a case like that above? Or am I not seeing the wood for the trees once again? Any suggestions? Cheers, Danny. [1] http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~puninj/RGML/ --- Danny Ayers <stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff> Alternate email (2001) : danny666@virgilio.it danny_ayers@yahoo.co.uk
Received on Saturday, 29 December 2001 07:03:12 UTC