- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:20:03 +0100
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: W3C SWIG Mailing-List <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org, public-rdf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAGxZetJOGC+udatW0gcU1GbLgrDBZxy5tvBuTmidnG_YjmEntQ@mail.gmail.com>
Also, this can be quite adequately represented using OWL property chains. Rinke On Mar 1, 2012 8:13 AM, "Michael Hausenblas" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > > Are you aware of http://sioc-project.org/ ...? > > Cheers, > Michael > -- > Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow > LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute > NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway > Ireland, Europe > Tel. +353 91 495730 > http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ > http://sw-app.org/about.html > > On 1 Mar 2012, at 07:28, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > > Dear Semantic Web enthousiasts, >> >> Suppose we have a Web application for blogging: >> - /posts/35 is a blog post >> - /posts/35/comments are the comments to that post >> - /posts/35/comments/3 is a specific comment to this post >> >> In RDF, it is straightforward to make the relation between the blog post >> and a specific comment: >> </posts/35> :hasComment </posts/35/comments/3>. >> It is also easy to describe the relation between a specific comment and >> all comments: >> </posts/35/comments/4> :memberOf </posts/35/comments>. >> >> However, how do we indicate the relationship between the blog post and >> *all* comments that belong to it? >> I.e., what is the relationship between </posts/35> and >> </posts/35/comments> ? >> >> One could make a new predicate for that of course: >> </posts/35/> :hasComments </posts/35/comments>. >> But then, we still have to explain the relation between :hasComments and >> :hasComment; and we’d have to do that for every such plural predicate. >> >> This seems to be a fundamental problem. >> Clearly, the resource “comments on blog post 35” exists, but there >> doesn’t seem to be a straightforward way to describe it in RDF. >> RDF lists will not be sufficient: they could indeed explain the relation >> between a specific comment and all comments, but not the relation between >> all comments and the blog post. >> Also note that the indirect relation “_:x :hasComment _:y. _:y :memberOf >> _:z” is not sufficient: a blog post can have no comments, but even then it >> still has an (empty) comments resource. >> >> Have you encountered this issue and how do you solve it? >> >> Kind regards, >> -- >> Ruben Verborgh >> http://twitter.com/**RubenVerborgh <http://twitter.com/RubenVerborgh> >> PhD Student at Multimedia Lab – IBBT / ELIS, Ghent University, Belgium >> >> Make your hypermedia API ready for intelligent agents via >> http://restdesc.org/. >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 08:20:42 UTC