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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:38:26 -0400
To: sandro@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020527223826D.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: bNodes again (Re: Container semantics (was Re: bNodes wanted))
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:49:05 -0400

> 
> > 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

An interesting comment on the utility of RDF.  

I happen to think that RDF does have some utility by itself.

peter
Received on Monday, 27 May 2002 22:38:46 GMT

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