[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Danny Ayers]
> ...
> CGs and RDF have a lot in common. Taking the main points of the abstract
> syntax for CGs in the ISO standard [1] it's possible to map across fairly
> directly to aspects of RDF (this is a 2 minute, first shot attempt) :
>
> 6.1 Conceptual Graph - RDF model
> 6.2 Concept - Resource
> 6.3 Conceptual Relation - Statement (/Property)
Disagree. "In a conceptual graph, the boxes are called concepts, and the
circles are called conceptual relations." (Sowa 2000, p476). RDF has no
conceptual relations. They have to be simulated, most likely with bnodes.
> 6.4 Lambda Expression - bnode (maybe)
Disagree. lambda expressions involve variables. RDF has no varaiables.
> 6.5 Concept Type - Class
> 6.6 Relation Type - (Property) Class
Class, yes, Property no.
> 6.7 Referent - Object (of statement)
Disagree. A referent is essential an identifier (Sowa, p 424).
> 6.8 Context - RDF model
Sort of. A context is a subgraph.
> 6.9 Coreference Set - I don't there's any defined as such in RDF (but I'm
> pretty sure it could be)
> 6.10 Module - RDF model (maybe)
>
> ...
> There are other similarities between CGs and RDF when you look at the
> details, as *you* have shown in the past [2] ;-)
>
Good memory (or was it Google?)! Yup, I did, for simple cases it works out
well. But CGs have a lot more richness. Basically, RDF is
existential-conjunctive, whereas CG can express all four styles (again from
Sowa but I do not have a page reference right now).
Cheers,
Tom P
|
