Valentina
Adhere to [Noy 05]?
In the new editor's note http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n-aryRelations-2nd-WD.html about N-ary relations in RDF the patterns changed. The precedent 2 patterns collapsed in one, and there is a new pattern which uses rdf:List
.Summarizing:
P rdf:type X. P rA A . P rB B . P rC C . P rdf:type X. A rA P . P rB B . P rC C .
Main.LarsMariusThe question is: what does an n-ary association in Topic Maps become when we convert it to RDF? And is there going to be a way to convert an RDF resource into an n-ary association when converting to Topic Maps? Those are the questions, I think. Noy's note is probably only helpful in that it has a proposal for the former, but IMHO what she calls n-ary relationship is not the same as an n-ary association in Topic Maps, so it may be best to simply ignore the note.
Main.ValentinaPresuttiLars and I agree that Noy's third example of the pattern 1 is not a good example. It seems to be a poor example by modeling point of view. The best thing to do is to involve Natasha Noy in this discussion highlighting this point. Furthermore, Christopher Welty is working on a vocabulary for representing N-ary relations. We agree that using that vocabulary is mandatory. I asked about a first draft of the vocabulary, Christopher said he was going to work on it last weekend. I will ask again for news and would like to propose to work out it together.