- From: Hamish Harvey <david.harvey@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:32:17 +0100
- To: "Richard Lennox" <listserve@richardlennox.net>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Richard, On Thursday 20 May 2004 10:27, Richard Lennox wrote: > I was wondering if this is at all possible. > > I have a triple: > > Class1 dc:relation Class2 > > Such that there is a relation between Class1 and Class2 - and while there > are/could be more refinements of the property dc:relation, say for the sake > of arguments they are not correct in this particular usage. Is it then > possible to add a property to the property, a particular comment. > > Class1 dc:relation Class2 > dc:relation comment blahblah > > Perhaps those triples are wrong, I just don't know. > And how would I reprresent this in various manifestations of RDF (N3, > (R,P,V) and RDF/XML)? _:class1 dc:relation _:class2 . dc:relation ex:comment "blah blah" . would be valid (N3/Turtle) but it doesn't mean what you want to say. The comment here is about the property indicated by dc:relation, rather than about this specific instance of it. Observe: _:class1 dc:relation _:class2 . _:class3 dc:relation _:class4 . dc:relation ex:comment "blah blah" . would otherwise be ambiguous. Reification (to make statements about *statements* rather than properties) sounds like a good fit for this, but I've been wrong about reification before. Hamish
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2004 05:43:32 UTC