[sc34wg3] New syntax for (binary) associations
rho at devc.at
Wed Feb 6 04:41:20 EST 2008
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 01:24:52PM -0500, Dmitry wrote:
> I like the idea of explicit "Property" definitions
> isa Property;
> tm:subject_role o:Employee @ o:is-employed;
> tm:object_role o:Employer @ o:is-employed.
> Explicit properties allow to have a compact syntax for binary
> associations + some new interesting possibilities:
Woohie, you may have broken the world record on the number of semantic
levels squeezed into 4 lines. I see instance data, modelling and
Is the above meant as the RDF pendant to
o:works-for a rdfs:property;
owl:inverseOf o:is-employed .
o:works-for rdfs:domain ???? .
o:works-for rdfs:range ???? .
> meta:unknown o:works_for;
I don't understand. This is supposed to say "john works for something
unknown"? But how does the above scoping take care that the
employer/employee stuff is correct? It could also say "something works
> meta:known_all o:parents.
'meta' being on what meta-meta level? :-) What did you try to
More information about the sc34wg3