Re: Can't RDF describe collection resources?

On 1 Mar 2012, at 10:48, Ruben Verborgh wrote:

>> I don't get this. Remember that with this modelling you would have at your disposal both :hasComments and :hasComment, being them redundantly constrained by the property chain axiom. You can use any of the two interchangeably. In aprticular, you can use just :hasComment and ignore systematically :hasComments in your application (but when you need to create the comments resource once forever for a newly created blog) and everything would be fine. To be more precise, you need also to state that the :hasComments property is functional, so that you could add (or refer to) a comment as a :hasComment without bothering mentioning the comments resource.
> 
> 
> If I understand correctly, you argue that the :hasComment property is redundant, because it is equivalent to the composition of :hasComments and :memberOf.

They are *mutually* redundant. And I guess I got your problem here by saying that you can always use just the singular :hasComment property, both in reading and in writing, since automatically the "filling" of the :hasComments and :memberOf properties would be handled automatically if you have the owl axioms I was proposing.

> (The :hasComments is then not redundant, for cases where the comment set is empty.)
> So what I meant, is that the majority of existing data (and properties) have been described with the singular properties, because that’s just easier in RDF.

See above. I understood your issue, but I believe that the modelling I propose is working fine for your needs.

cheers
--e.