W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2003

Re: practical problems with rdf:parseType="Collection" implementation

From: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:33:06 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.0.20030814082307.02294ee8@tnt.isi.edu>
To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org


>
>Its also quite awkward to query for, eg. in RDQL. I guess we need some
>kind of idiom that means is a memeber of this list. Theres nothing that
>logically comes from the structure though, unlike with collections.

You are absolutely correct  -- querying RDF lists using RDQL as it exists today
makes absolutely no sense.  This kind of list is intended to be used in
conjunction with some kind of recursion.  If and when we have rules
(e.g., RULEML) then writing a single memberOf rule is probably all that
we would need to make it easy to extract items from a list within a query.
But it would be better if this functionality were part of a W3C standard.

There ought to be an official "memberOf" property with domain RDF:Resource
and range RDF:List that is true for each member of a list.  Implementers of
RDF servers might wish to implement such a property on their own, in hopes
that the (future) RDF committee will see the light and formally bless such a
property some time in the future.

Cheers, Bob

P.S., Actually, I'd prefer that "memberOf" would be polymorphic, with range
Collection, or whatever class subsumes all of the current and future RDF
collections.
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 11:33:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:01 GMT