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

Re: Can't RDF describe collection resources?

From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:01:25 +0100
Cc: "<public-rdf@w3.org>" <public-rdf@w3.org>, "<public-rdf-wg@w3.org>" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, W3C SWIG Mailing-List <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6557A563-3BE1-4FFA-884F-C4A000EA257F@ugent.be>
To: "Andrea Splendiani (RRes-Roth)" <andrea.splendiani@rothamsted.ac.uk>
Hi Andrea,

> <http://example.org/courses/6.001>

>    s:students (
>        <http://example.org/students/Amy>
>        <http://example.org/students/Mohamed>
>        <http://example.org/students/Johann>
>    ).
> That seems what you are looking for. However, I think this introduces a collection object in triples, that may be not "handy" in queries. I'm not sure how much collections are used: i didn't see them often.

It’s almost what I’m looking for: I want to solve this problem one level higher.
You show the “students” relationship, which probably relates to the “student” relationship, and my question is how I can make such collection-instance relationships in general.



> Il giorno 01/mar/2012, alle ore 07.28, Ruben Verborgh ha scritto:
>> 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 09:02:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:37:11 UTC