4 ms·
> foo has a relationship with bar of type baz Nope, "of type baz" is not required.
by throwaway290 3y ago
> foo has a relationship with bar of type baz
Nope, "of type baz" is not required.
- hobofan 3y agoDepends on the perspective. The predicate will always be an IRI. The object will either be an IRI or a literal, and all literals in RDF (as of RDF 1.1) are typed , though serialization formats like Turtle work with implied types. There is also the option of blank nodes for objects, though in almost all implementations they are stand-ins for anonymous IRIs, so in some sense or another almost anything has "a" type.
- PaulHoule 3y agoGod the word "type" is overloaded in common discourse. For a link ?s ?p ?o . you could say this is a link of "type" ?p, but technically in RDF we say ?s is of type ?type if ?s <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> ?type . which can be abbreviated as ?s a ?type . If you have RDFS inference turned on, notably, just using ?p in a triple will imply ?p a rdf:Property . In plain RDF you can say a property is of some other ?type but I think you can get in trouble with that if you want to do OWL DL inference and you might want to say something like ?p rdfs:subPropertyOf :SomeSpecialKindOfProperty .
- throwaway290 3y agoif baz is meant to be relationship then I was low key wrong in my comment (I thought baz was the kind of bar, which can be untyped). But I guess the relationship must be a property at least