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

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

From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:24:17 +0100
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030814162416.GP4141@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:33:06AM -0700, Bob MacGregor wrote:
> >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.

Er, I appologise for using the word logically here! I wasn't thinking.
 
> 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.

Its hard to see how you would do that efficiently.

> But it would be better if this functionality were part of a W3C standard.

Yes.
 
> 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.

Yeah, I hoped there would be such a thing, it would have to be a
property that couldn't be asserted manualy to prevent (partial)
modification of the list structure, so thats pretty messy.

- Steve 
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 12:24:18 GMT

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