- From: Harold Boley <boley@informatik.uni-kl.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:53:52 +0200
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- CC: " - *www-rdf-logic@w3.org" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Hi Jos, > For the between example, would [usa between [canada pair mexico]] > be a possible model? Yes, this indeed nicely captures the USA focus in the "%"-comment of between(mexico, usa, canada). % The USA is between Mexico and Canada. and can also be extended for the symmetry of `between' in the first and third arguments by just using a symmetric pair relation. But someone could exploit the between(Lower, Middle, Upper) signature in the south-to-north sense, grouping these countries differently such as [[mexico south usa] and [usa south canada]], or even [mexico south [usa south canada]], or use some other permutation of nested triples. Also, `pair', `south', `and', `argI' (from my previous email), and other new binary relations can be avoided by just employing the above ternary `between' relation. Moreover, for certain ternary relations there seems hardly any intuitive binary reduction. Consider a purchase(Buyer, Object, Seller) relation. For Horn relationships like purchase(usa, alaska, russia). % The USA purchased Alaska from Russia. there seems no better binary reduction than (in nested triple notation) [purchase relship [[purchase1 arg1 usa] and [[purchase1 arg2 alaska] and [purchase1 arg3 russia]]]] To visualize this you can use a graph: ---------- | | | | | purchase | | | | | ---------- | relship | V ---------- | | | | ------------| purchase1|------------ | | | | | arg1 | | | arg3 | ---------- | | | arg2 | V V V -------- -------- -------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | usa | | alaska | | russia | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------- -------- -------- Or, for the original ternary relationship, again use a hypergraph: -------- -------- -------- | | | | | | | | | | | | | usa | purchase | alaska | | russia | | |--------------------------->| | | | | | | | -------- -------- -------- So, what would you think about an "N-ary RDF" where the triples in "5. Formal Model for RDF" of http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/: {pred, subj, obj} or pred(subj, obj) are generalized to (N+1)-tuples: {pred, arg1, ..., argN} or pred(arg1, ..., argN) ? Best, Harold
Received on Monday, 18 September 2000 13:54:25 UTC