- From: Jerven Bolleman <me@jerven.eu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:09:23 +0200
- To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jerven Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch>, William Waites <ww@styx.org>, "public-lod@w3.org community" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Hugh, I recently stumbled over this post by the TopBraid/SPIN guys. Maybe this is appropiate for your usecase. http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.ch/2013/06/spin-vocabulary-for-column-metadata.html Regards, Jerven On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > Thanks Jerven, you may well be right! > SELECT DISTINCT * WHERE > { ?s foo:bar ?o } > would do. > And things like > SELECT DISTINCT * WHERE > { ?v1 foo:bar ?o . ?v1 ?p1 ?v2 . ?v2 ?p2 ?v3 } > and then probably get back an identifier for each result, so that I can find out what are the values of the ?p* and ?v* > I think essentially the sort of thing that dbpedia/virtuoso is giving me. > (By the way, Kingsley, replying to this has caused me to notice that the rdfxml does not rapper very nicely - sorry to report! > rapper: Error - URI file:///home/hg/sparql.rdf:8 - property element 'solution' has multiple object node elements, skipping.) > > Best > Hugh > > On 21 Sep 2013, at 23:32, Jerven Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@isb-sib.ch> > wrote: > >> Hi Hugh, >> >> I think you disregarded the CONSTRUCT queries a bit to quickly. This is what you use when you want to get back triples. >> If you want back result columns you use SELECT. If you want describe to the concept of result columns in RDF then you are >> on your own. >> >> Maybe if you explain what you want to represent then we can have a bit more of an informed discussion. >> >> Regards, >> Jerven >> On Sep 21, 2013, at 8:38 PM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> Many thanks, William, and for confirming so quickly. >>> (And especially thanks for not telling me that CONSTRUCT does what I want!) >>> I had suddenly got excited that RDF might actually be useable to represent something I wanted to represent, just like we tell other people :-) >>> So it is all non-standard, as I suspected. >>> Ah well, I'll go back to trying to work with XML stuff, instead of using my usual RDF tools :-( >>> Very best >>> Hugh >>> >>> On 21 Sep 2013, at 19:14, William Waites <ww@styx.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Hugh, >>>> >>>> You can get results in RDF if you use CONSTRUCT -- which is basically >>>> a special case of SELECT that returns 3-tuples and uses set semantics >>>> (does not allow duplicates), but I imagine that you are aware of this. >>>> >>>> Returning RDF for SELECT where the result set consists in n-tuples >>>> where n != 3 is difficult because there is no direct way to represent >>>> it. >>>> >>>> Also problematic is that there *is* a concept of order in SPARQL query >>>> results while there is not with RDF. >>>> >>>> Also the use of bag semantics allowing duplicates which also does not >>>> really work with RDF. >>>> >>>> These, again, could be kludged with reification, but that is not very >>>> elegant. >>>> >>>> So most SELECT results are not directly representable in RDF. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -w >>>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Jerven Bolleman Jerven.Bolleman@isb-sib.ch >> SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics Tel: +41 (0)22 379 58 85 >> CMU, rue Michel Servet 1 Fax: +41 (0)22 379 58 58 >> 1211 Geneve 4, >> Switzerland www.isb-sib.ch - www.uniprot.org >> Follow us at https://twitter.com/#!/uniprot >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > -- Jerven Bolleman me@jerven.eu
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 08:09:51 UTC