- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 22:30:46 +0100
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi Paul, On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 8:43 PM, Paul Kuykendall wrote: > > When we were trying to develop a container concept here, we went down > both the RDF collection route as well as the way that Hydra is > currently designed. Both ways ended up being insufficient beyond the > simplistic case for a workable application. After discovering the > Linked Data Platform specs, specifically the ldp:Container we finally > had a solution for describing collections in a generic and usable way. > I would recommend looking at http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/ for more ideas. I've been following LDP quite closely and am aware of most of the discussions that happened around ldp:Container but I can't see how it addresses the problem at hand. Please note that in Hydra the interaction is *not* tied to Collection as it is the case for LDP's Container. Maybe I'm also just missing something. Could you please go a bit more into the details about what problems ldp:Container solves that you Hydra doesn't (I'm deliberately not saying hydra:Collection here). Thanks, Markus > /Paul Kuykendall > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregg Kellogg [mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net] > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 1:27 PM > To: Kingsley Idehen > Cc: public-hydra@w3.org > Subject: Re: Reconciling hydra rest semantics for collections with > typical RDF entity relationships > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality > Notice: This electronic mail transmission is confidential, may be > privileged and should be read or retained only by the intended > recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, please > immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 21:31:21 UTC