[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: many-to-many

• To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: many-to-many
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 18:30:01 -0500
• References: <200301270335.WAA03224@m...>

John Cowan wrote:
>
> "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" scripsit:
>
> > The usability of anonymous nodes can be overrated as they don't have a
> > URI serving as a global unique identifier (and potentialy locator) for
> > them.
>
> Indeed.  One would have to impose a higher-order rule that says "two
b-nodes
> with identical subjectIndicator properties are to be treated as
identical",
> as indeed they do in the TM world.

Yes, actually this is where owl:FunctionalProperty and
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty come in.
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#FunctionalProperty-def

In the above the property "subjectIndicator" would be defined as

<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="subjectIndicator" />

and hence if you had the following:

#a :subjectIndicator #foo .
#b :subjectIndicator #foo .

you could conclude that:

#a owl:sameIndividualAs #b

[...]
>
> > The right thing to do would be to use a non-retreivable scheme URI
> > (perhaps a URN?) (or an rdf:ID) to denote Shakespeare, as one cannot
> > simply download him. His picture should be mentioned as just that, not
> > as the person itself. Anonymous nodes are not needed to avoid confusion:
> >
> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="nonRetreivable://Persona/Shakespeare">
> >     <foo:picture rdf:resource="http://URL/to/pic"/>
> > </rdf:Description>
>
> The rdf:ID to which you refer is the b-node/anonymous node I was talking
> about in the first place.

for example:

<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:ID="ssn" >
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Person" />
</owl:FunctionalProperty>

then the following:

<Person>
    <ssn rdf:resource="#000-11-1234" />
    <haircolor rdf:resource="#blond" />
</Person>

and somewhere else:

<Person>
    <ssn rdf:resource="#000-11-1234" />
    <nosering rdf:resource="#large"/>
</Person>

you could conclude that these two (anonymous) persons are the same
individual. If you think about it, this is a totally powerful facility --
and rather useful.

Jonathan

• References:
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RDF resources (was: many-to-many)
• Next by Date: Re: many-to-many
• Previous by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Next by thread: RE: many-to-many
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread