- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:05:16 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > However, even then I don't see any impediment to representing this trinary > relationship as > > _:a rdf:type ex:marriage . > _:a ex:groom ex:John . > _:a ex:bride ex:Sally . > _:a ex:dog ex:Fido . > > or > > _:a rdf:type ex:marriage . > _:a _1 ex:John . > _:a _2 ex:Sally . > _:a _3 ex:Fido . > Right, Peter, and (I am agreeing that) this is just how n-ary relations have to be represented in RDF. From my point of view, 1) All the statements get glued together by means of the _:a bnode. 2) The _:a node is acting more or less like an n-ary predicate - or a conceptual relation in Conceptual Graphs - but 3) It is actually not a predicate from the RDF point of view - in RDF only those things in the middle of triples are predicates, as best I understand it. Well, my main interest here is just in trying to clarify (triggered by Danny's original post) that there are really higher arity things of importance in RDF, and it's good to keep that in mind, even if they can be disguised by the formalism. Cheers, Tom P -- Thomas B. Passin Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books) http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 15:03:53 UTC