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

Re: Can't RDF describe collection resources?

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:20:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGxZetJOGC+udatW0gcU1GbLgrDBZxy5tvBuTmidnG_YjmEntQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Cc: W3C SWIG Mailing-List <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, public-rdf@w3.org
Also, this can be quite adequately represented using OWL property chains.

Rinke
On Mar 1, 2012 8:13 AM, "Michael Hausenblas" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
wrote:

>
> 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 <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 08:20:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 March 2012 08:20:42 GMT