Re: RDF graph representation

Hi Jeremy :-)

>> subject (and object, I assume) in RDF, doesn't this make a
>> node-arc-node representation of a triple invalid?
>>
>
> To play devil's advocate 'no'
> Consider a graph
>
> eg:a eg:b eg:c .
> eg:b eg:a eg:c .

> Obviously, when trying to understand what it might mean, you have to 
> notice that the eg:b labelling one of the edges and the eg:b labelling 
> a node is the same.


MMm :-) but to me It appears to me that you're actually showing that 
"yes, graph rappresentation alone  (arc nodes, as stated in the original 
question)  is inadequate".since you "have to notice" things that are not 
clearly shown

We tried to play with markers and a whiteboard and came up with some 
reppresentation that covers RDF  withouth the reader "having to 
understand" :

subject ---1--> predicate  x---1---- object

that is..with 2 kind of arrows AND a numbering on top of them matching 1 
to 1 the incoming (with a > tip) with the outcoming (starting anyway 
with a x).
.. but that seems a bit complicated :-)  and busy predicates become 
immediately illegible

> Traditionally, edge labels are referred to as colours in graph theory. 
> The RDF graph is peculiar in having both coloured arcs and coloured 
> nodes (partially). But (the non-colour blind) would not see it as 
> strange being asked to notice that the blue edges were the same colour 
> as a blue node.


/me , as many others, is colorblind, :-)  I believe colors should be out 
of the questions in scientific reppresentation when meaning "labels" (As 
in classes) "... it might be ok when used in "scales" (e.g blue to red 
for temperature) when moderate gradients are presentes (so not to have 
standalone spots).

Received on Saturday, 24 July 2004 12:14:59 UTC