- From: Richard Lennox <listserve@richardlennox.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:45:15 +0100
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net> To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Placing a comment on a relationship?! > > Richard Lennox wrote: > > Yes it would be plausible to set up refinements of dc:relation (I think > > thats what you mean) > > ie. x:isTranslationOf rdfs:subPropertyOf dc:relation > > > > however there are those relations that I will not be able to define (as I > > could never get every concievable relation) so the default would be: > > C1 dc:relationC2 > > > > Thus an additional comment on the relation woul be nice to describe it in > > some textual way. It follows the same problem of > > C1 my:relation C2 > > C3 my:relation C4 > > my:relation x:comment "blah blah" if rthe comment is only for that > > particular relation. > > > > The idea would be that each statement uses a different instance of the > property. You might have to simulate that by using unique subproperties - > > C1 my:relation_1 C2 > C3 my:relation_2 C4 > > my:relation_1 subPropertyOf dc:relation > my:relation_2 subpropertyOf dc:relation > > You don't have to further constrain these properties, so they could all > "mean" the same thing. > > Or maybe you could just type them as instances - someone who knows the > semantics better would be able to say more about this - i.e. > > my:relation_1 rdfs:type dc:relation > my:relation_2 rdfs:type dc:relation > > Either way, you would only use a given one of these predicates once in a > given graph. > > > Not necessarily a single thing can have relations to many things and using many different types of relation hence a graph could have C1 dc:relation_1 C2 C1 dc:relation_2 C3 C1 dc:relation_3 C4 Defining all subProperties of all possible relations would not be possible and expecting non-tehcnical users to create their own "subPropertiesOf" would probably be unfeasible. Perhaps the intended triple is: (c1 dc:relation C2) x:comment "blah blah" . From what I understand reification is a way to do it but it is very verbose (especially in RDF/XML) Cheers
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2004 10:02:17 UTC