- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:26:59 -0800
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 2/4/14 1:26 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> This is a general problem of RDF. AFAICT, there's no way general way to >> solve this issue for sets. If you would use a list, you could at least use >> the list's head node (which generally is a blank node). Remember our >> discussions in the JSON-LD group? >> >> Both Schema.org with its ItemList and Hydra with its Collection take a >> rather pragmatic approach. We could of course go ahead and define a >> Collection's semantics so that > > I assume you've looked at RDF Schema vocabulary which does describe RDF Collections [1] and Containers [2]. I believe Markus' was referring to RDF Collections when he said "list". Of course, a big problem with collections is the navigation cost in RDF, and you can't really chain lists together, presuming that they're conformant BNode-type lists. You also can't refer to such a list, as it also must start with a BNode (to be conformant, not from a vocabulary perspective). Containers don't work well for a remote list of values, as they use a separate statement for each value, and you can't refer to an external container holding such values. Another vocabulary to consider is the Ordered List Ontology [3]. Gregg > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_containervocab . [3] http://smiy.sourceforge.net/olo/spec/orderedlistontology.html > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 19:27:28 UTC