[rdfweb-dev] Another relationships proposal

Ian Davis iand at internetalchemy.org
Sat Mar 20 10:51:41 UTC 2004


Hi David,

On Saturday, March 20, 2004, 12:38:49 AM, David Menendez wrote:

> Based on what I've written below, I think it would be useful to do a
> requirements/use cases phase before developing the schema further. What
> information are we trying to capture? How do we envision it being used?
> Any vocabulary is going to be too complex for some purposes and/or not
> complex enough for others, but I think we can hit an 80/20 point
> somewhere.

> Ian Davis writes:

>> 
>> On Friday, March 19, 2004, 8:58:57 PM, David Menendez wrote:
>> > True, but the vocabulary is merely asserting the existence of a
>> > relationship (and again, { A ancestor B } means "B is an ancestor
>> > of A according to the rules A uses"). I think that even the most
>> > patrilineal society would accept that people *have* maternal
>> > grandmothers, even if they aren't important in terms of inheritance.
>> 
>> > That is to say, if I say { A ancestor B }, I'm claiming that there
>> > is *some* line of descent from B to A.

>> I don't think I expressed my point very clearly. What I meant to say
>> was that I though the parent/ancestor subclass/superclass relationship
>> was not universally shared. See my follow up message where I move
>> ancestor to be a peer class of parent.

> I think you mean "property" here, not "class".

> I don't think we should get too hung up on the actual words being used
> to name these RDF terms. As I was using them, "ancestor" and
> "descendent" refer to lineal relatives (that is, related by a direct
> line of descent). This is orthogonal to whether a society is patrilineal
> or matrilineal or something else.

True, but this is confusing sociological relations with biological.
All biologicalParents are biologicalAncestors, not all
sociologicalParents are soliologicalAncestors.



Ian

-- 
http://internetalchemy.org | http://purl.org/NET/iand 




More information about the foaf-dev mailing list