> If I want to model a resource, there are several approaches I can use
to
> model it. A phenomenological approach is one of them, a platonic
approach
> another one, etc... Let say that the resource/phenomena reveals itself
> through a certain representation accessible to my senses or my
cognitive
> processes then a triple seen as a representation make sense. It
implies a
> certain philosophical approach.
Now this is veering into an area I find very interesting.
You are right. For example, if you want to model a color, to be used as
a property value for some data you are storing, you have some options.
Among your options:
a) use a symbol, like "red", "blue", etc.
b) use numeric values for the characteristics that you *perceive*. For
example, numeric values for brightness, saturation, and "red", "green",
"blue" chromaticness.
c) use numeric values for the characteristics that some scientific
instrument measures. For example, a number representing the wavelength
of the light, and a number representing intensity.
These options have various different tradeoffs. Also, once you choose
one, it is not necessarily possible to map losslessly to the other. You
can carve a career out of debating which one is best for a particular
scenario.
It's funny, now that you mention it, that this discipline of choosing a
technique to model perceived things is also called "representation" in
the literature. Now I am liking foaf "depiction" even more.
