Re: InverseFunctional properties are the new URI?

Hash: SHA1

Dan Brickley wrote:

| * Damian Steer <> [2004-07-30 10:26+0100]

| Sandro Hawke wrote: |>Actually, I think I'll disagree with myself
| before anyone else does. |>Taking Dan's point, the ordering could
| well be IFP > no URI/IFP > URI |>because the URI is in no way a
| property of the described object whereas |>all other properties
| are. | | | Why isn't something's URI an IFP property of the thing?
| TimBL calls | that property log:uri, I think.   For a while, I
| generalized it | slightly to u:uname [1]. | |      -- sandro | |
| [1]
| Hmm. Why not use rdf:resource and rdf:about (being samePropertyAs)?
| Backwards compatible, and parsers will just need to de-bless those
| attributes. For example:
| <rdf:Description newrdf:about=""> ~  <a:prop
| newrdf:resource=""/>
|> If newrdf:resource is unblessed, ie. 'just a property' this is
|> same as
|> <a:prop> <rdf:Description>
|> <newrdf:resource></newrdf:resource>
|> </rdf:Description> </a:prop>
|> ...which isn't quite what you want, I think.

Sorry, just to be clear this was wrt Sandro's uname, where the object
is a literal. I guess (though I'm not sure) that Sandro would have
just literals and bnodes -- is that right? -- so I suggest calling it
"the revenge of OWL full". It also reminds me of a discussion on
#rdfig about the statement <uri> dc:identifier "uri"^^xsd:anyURI .

You could also semi-bless, as in rdf:type.

| You'd also run into
|> back-compatibility problems since properties can repeat, while
| rdf:about
|> can't. Also if rdf:resource is a property, it would appear in a
|> different syntactic role, ie. as an element. And rdf:about could
|> appear there too. Thinking about it, it'd be total chaos :)

Free your western mind and embrace the chaos, Dan :-)

Actually I meant forwards compatible (stupid brain). All existing data
would be fine.

I'm embracing this new world as we speak. Changing all those rdf ns
decls to point elsewhere leaves rapper (alarmingly) unconcerned (arp
is more tetchy - rdf:RDF causes an issue). Suddenly my rdf is entirely
bnodes and literals :-) Add in the ifp bits and it's complete. Who's
with me?

(Apologies for thunderbird's idiot quoting)


Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


Received on Friday, 30 July 2004 06:44:54 UTC