[RDF] Re: Why contexts? (was: Klyne Contexts: 5.3-5.5 resources, languages and frames)

[Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN]

Graham Klyne wrote:
> One of my reasons for using contexts is that it gives me a framework for
> making statements that do not depend on detailed ontological
> structure.  Thus, in the 1st example you cite, I know that my car has an
> engine and a body without necessarily knowing how they are ontologically
> related to the car as a whole, and I can make meaningful statements about them.

Interesting point.
Actually, I too had problems with the Car example, but that makes sense...

I have another idea since a few days, which may be an alternate solution :
the use of "anonymous" resources (which mean for me: I know there is a resource here, but I don't know its URI).

We can use anonymous resources as subject or object of a statement.
Why not as the predicate ??

  [my:Car] --[ ]--> [my:Engine]

I have a car, I have an engine, I know there is a relation between them,
but I have no word for that...

 what do you RDFers think of that ?

  Pierre-Antoine


> 
> >One example says, in part:
> >
> >       [MyCar] --isa--> [FordEscort]
> >       [     ] --rdfc:asserts-->
> >         {
> >         [TheBody] ----color-----> "red"
> >         [TheEngine] --capacity--> "1600cc"
> >         }
> >
> >
> >The normal way to do this would be:
> >
> >  S1: [my:Car] --type--> [FordEscort]
> >  S2: [my:Car] --body--> [my:Body]
> >  S3: [my:Body] --color--> [red]
> >  S4: [my:Car] --engine--> [my:Engine]
> >  S5: [my:Engine] --capacity--> [my:Capacity]
> >  S6: [my:Capacity] --unit--> [cc]
> >  S7: [my:Capacity] --value--> "1600"
> 
> By comparison, this form of description requires that the ontological
> relationship between the components is known.