W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Can't RDF describe collection resources?

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:05:43 +0000
Cc: public-rdf@w3.org, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, W3C SWIG Mailing-List <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B3D0C96F-D67C-48F5-B6DA-50833C1935C1@deri.org>
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>

Are you aware of http://sioc-project.org/ ...?

Cheers,
	Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html

On 1 Mar 2012, at 07:28, Ruben Verborgh wrote:

> Dear Semantic Web enthousiasts,
>
> Suppose we have a Web application for blogging:
> - /posts/35 is a blog post
> - /posts/35/comments are the comments to that post
> - /posts/35/comments/3 is a specific comment to this post
>
> In RDF, it is straightforward to make the relation between the blog  
> post and a specific comment:
>  </posts/35> :hasComment </posts/35/comments/3>.
> It is also easy to describe the relation between a specific comment  
> and all comments:
>  </posts/35/comments/4> :memberOf </posts/35/comments>.
>
> However, how do we indicate the relationship between the blog post  
> and *all* comments that belong to it?
> I.e., what is the relationship between </posts/35> and </posts/35/ 
> comments> ?
>
> One could make a new predicate for that of course:
>  </posts/35/> :hasComments </posts/35/comments>.
> But then, we still have to explain the relation between :hasComments  
> and :hasComment; and we’d have to do that for every such plural  
> predicate.
>
> This seems to be a fundamental problem.
> Clearly, the resource “comments on blog post 35” exists, but there  
> doesn’t seem to be a straightforward way to describe it in RDF.
> RDF lists will not be sufficient: they could indeed explain the  
> relation between a specific comment and all comments, but not the  
> relation between all comments and the blog post.
> Also note that the indirect relation “_:x :hasComment _:y.  
> _:y :memberOf _:z” is not sufficient: a blog post can have no  
> comments, but even then it still has an (empty) comments resource.
>
> Have you encountered this issue and how do you solve it?
>
> Kind regards,
> -- 
> Ruben Verborgh
> http://twitter.com/RubenVerborgh
> PhD Student at Multimedia Lab – IBBT / ELIS, Ghent University, Belgium
>
> Make your hypermedia API ready for intelligent agents via http://restdesc.org/ 
> .
>
>
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 08:06:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 March 2012 08:06:23 GMT