Re: RDF Schema questions

Hi David, and thank you for your answers,

* David Allsopp
| 
| [multiple statements vs using a bag]
|
| The example is given of a resolution approved by a committee, (and
| not necessarily each individual member of the committee). In this
| case it is stated that a Bag would be a better model.

Hmmmm. OK, I think think I get this. The distinction seems a bit
contrived to me, but it is probably because I've been brain-washed by
using topic maps for so long. I'll try to accept it and see where that
takes me.

| There is also the walkthrough at http://www.daml.org/ if you haven't
| already seen that. 

I've seen that, I'm afraid, and it wasn't much help, I felt, nor was
the DAML specification. I'm used to learning things by reading specs,
but this one felt extraordinarily thin and unhelpful.

| Modelling in DAML is somewhat different to RDF Schema, although DAML
| _is_ an extension of RDF Schema.

How is modelling in DAML different from using RDF Schema, would you say?
(I'm just intrigued by what makes the extension different from the
original.) 

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| My last question is not really related to RDF Schema: are RDF
| statements also statements about the objects? That is, if I say
| (word-A, similar-to, word-B), should I then also make the opposite
| statement lest I imply that while A is similar to B, B is not
| similar to A?
 
* David Allsopp
|
| I think RDF makes no assumption either way - it is up to you. RDF
| doesn't allow one to specify inverse properties, so it isn't "wrong"
| in RDF terms to omit the opposite statement.

Why would I need to specify inverse properties if there is no implicit
assumption involved? What do I get by specifying an inverse property
using DAML that I wouldn't have if I didn't? Granted, generalized
tools would be able to understand more of my schema, but beyond that,
what would I gain?
 
--Lars M.

Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 16:06:58 UTC