W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2002

bNodes again (Re: Container semantics (was Re: bNodes wanted))

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:49:05 -0400
Message-Id: <200205272249.g4RMn5801867@wadimousa.hawke.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

> Suppose I wanted to create the collection of plays that Shakespeare wrote.
> I might proceed as follows:
> 
>   <people:Person rdf:ID="Shakespeare">
>    <authorCollection>
>     <rdf:Bag>
>      <rdf:li rdf:resource="plays:Hamlet" />
>      <rdf:li rdf:resource="plays:Macbeth" />
>      ...
>     </rdf:Bag>
>    </authorCollection>
>   </people:Person>
> 
> How can someone add any elements to the above Bag from outside the
> document, even the using more-powerful n-triples notation?  I don't see a
> way.  The situation would be entirely different if the Bag had an ID,
> however.

Ah, now I see what page you're on.  You're playing strictly with RDF
1.0, while I'm trying to generalize about bNodes as they might be used
(and I expect will be used) into real systems.  My argument is that
sub-languages (like RDF 1.0 by itself) with which bNodes have
expressive utility (as opposed to mere typographic convenience )
aren't going to be very useful.

In other words -- yes, you do have a use case for bNodes which should
not be Skolemized, but it requires RDF 1.0 collections used in the
absense of an ontology; I don't personally find that realistic and
compelling.

    -- sandro
Received on Monday, 27 May 2002 18:50:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT