Danny,
> That smells very wrong - links work both ways (the implied inverse).
> Uniformity of linkage. Making an artificial distinction - pragmatic
> reasons?
You are right and I used the wrong words to describe the situation.
However, you just precisely delivered the argument IMHO that it does not
matter which way we go, hence acknowledging my claim that the two
modeling approaches are equivalent (hence no need to change anything :).
Cheers,
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland
tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org
----------------------------------------------------------
Danny Ayers wrote:
2008/11/29 François Scharffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Michael,
Michael Hausenblas wrote:
Francois,
Thanks for your feedback and the question. Though I'm not sure what you
technically mean with 'my:links is a named graph' :)
ditto
The system output the links in a named graph. See the following example in
TRiG:
<my:links>
{
<http://kmi.open.ac.uk/fusion/dblp#document1632795751_264>
owl:same_as
<http://kmi.open.ac.uk/fusion/dblp#document1ad8378bff1fe32cd13989741b50fe3eaef0db93>
.
}
We can then describe it as a void:Linkset as I've described below. This
allows to attach other information such as the author of the linkset, the
parameters of the algorithm used to generate it, etc.
I think the answer is simple: indeed we decided to model datasets and
linksets independently from each other. The following example from the (not
yet publicly available) voiD guide may illustrate this:
I'm not at all sure that's a valid distinction. How do they differ?
Let's assume the two well-known linked datasets DBpedia and DBLP:
:DBpedia void:containsLinks :DBpedia2DBLP .
:DBpedia2DBLP rdf:type void:Linkset ;
void:target :DBLP .
So, it is a linking *from* DBpedia *to* DBLP; as RDF is a direct graph,
this makes sense quite a lot (the subject 'sits' in DBpedia, the object in
DBLP).
That smells very wrong - links work both ways (the implied inverse).
Uniformity of linkage. Making an artificial distinction - pragmatic
reasons?
(c.f. http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/72 )
IIRC, we had your option in mind as well [1] but decided to go for the
current modeling due to the above reasons. Actually, as I think, the two
modelings are equivalent, just with reversed directions:
But I can't actually see anything in the vocab I'd want to change, so
feel free to ignore the above :-)
Cheers,
Danny.
