On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22/01/12 22:05, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>>> Do you really mean subPropertyOf and not subClassof?
>>>
>>> The twoidoms are:
>>>
>>> ?s rdf:type ?t .
>>> ?t rdfs:subClassOf* :T
>>>
>>> or ?s rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf* :T .
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> ?s ?p ?o .
>>> ?p rdfs:subPropertyOf* :P .
>>
>>
>> I happen to have a little tree of properties. These are named entity
>> types. I thought I wanted + because a zero-length path of them means
>> 'not one of these.' I've been running this for a very long time
>> successfully.
>
>
> But rdf:type + properties is unusual.
>
> The object of rdf:type is ... a class.
>
> The subject of rdfs:subPropertyOf is ... a property.
I miswrote above.
I own a family of Jape rules. Each one extracts a relationship.
So, one might produce statements like:
FOO STOLE CAR-27
And another might produce
BAR GOT-A-SALARY-OF 1,000,000
and the various properties (STOLE, GOT-A-SALARY) are arranged in a
little ontology. A *very* little ontology.
It was quite a while ago that I set this up, and I cannot, right this
evening, justify why there is any depth to this. There is the simple
tree of:
SOME-REL-WE-DETECTED
|
-------------------------------------
| |
Literal Not-Literal
| |
GOT-A-SALARY-OF STOLE
but that could just as easily be handled otherwise. I think I might
have been 'planning ahead'. So flattening to remove the need for the
path here is probably trivial. However, I think that I have some more
more interesting path usage elsewhere that I haven't looked at
recently.
>
> Andy
