W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Why are RDF containers (rdf:Seq etc.) so little appreciated?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:47:37 -0600
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BBDD3362-8604-4BD9-A2D2-CBD9198310D5@ihmc.us>
To: Axel Rauschmayer <axel@rauschma.de>
Im not sure what you  mean by 'stable identity', but the chief problem  
with containers is the fact that there is no way to 'close' them. If I  
say that FOO is a container and A, B and C are in it, there is no way  
to say that this is *all* that is in it. This makes them useless for  
encoding structures, eg OWL syntax. Collections' overcome this  
difficulty. So the collection notion is widely used to layer higher- 
level notations onto RDF, which is probably why toolkits have special  
provision for them. This does not stop you using the containers, of  
course. They are simple enough that you hardly need syntactic sugar,  

Pat Hayes

On Feb 13, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:

> In contrast to RDF collections (rdf:List), they have a stable  
> identity and don't use nested resources (=easy to remove).  
> Furthermore, standard RDFS inferencing can be used to infer  
> membership as the property rdfs:member.
> Yet, most RDF vocabularies that I know of use collections and  
> syntaxes such as Turtle have syntactic sugar for collections, but  
> not for containers. Why is that?
> Axel
> -- 
> Axel.Rauschmayer@ifi.lmu.de
> http://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/~rauschma/

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 06:48:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:03 UTC