RE: Re[2]: Associations in RDF

>I don't think it is naive at all.

That's a relief ;-)

In fact, your suggestion is similar to
>decoy's for layering the feature on top of the existing specs.  This is
>what I will do in the near term; however, the real issue is not
>"can this be layered on top" but "is it so fundamental, it should be
>part of the base."

Hmm - speaking as one who has had several good ideas on what is "
fundamental...", only to have it shown by the good fellow of this list that
they belong better in layers on top, I would definitely recommend a good
pause for deliberation... (but it might well be something for the base!)

Also, if the knowledge representation is incorrect
>without it (due to what I call "implied subordination") then to be correct
>it should be part of rdfs.

Hmm again - I'm going to have to reread the (other) thread, I don't think
I've really grasped where the implied subordination applies (apart from the
choice of word 'property'). I can see the triple as having order and/or the
3 slots having constraints, but I can't really see how this amounts to


Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 18:35:21 UTC