[sc34wg3] New syntax for (binary) associations

[Robert Barta]

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 01:24:52PM -0500, Dmitry wrote:
> I like the  idea of explicit "Property" definitions
> 
> o:works-for
>      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
meta-modelling here.

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 ???? .

?

> john
>      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
for john"?

>      meta:known_all    o:parents.

'meta' being on what meta-meta level? :-) What did you try to
accomplish here?

\rho