- From: Andrea Splendiani (RRes-Roth) <andrea.splendiani@rothamsted.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:49:24 +0000
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- CC: "<public-rdf@w3.org>" <public-rdf@w3.org>, "<public-rdf-wg@w3.org>" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, W3C SWIG Mailing-List <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi, are you talking about collections and containers ? From: http://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/#L2986 <http://example.org/courses/6.001> s:students ( <http://example.org/students/Amy> <http://example.org/students/Mohamed> <http://example.org/students/Johann> ). That seems what you are looking for. However, I think this introduces a collection object in triples, that may be not "handy" in queries. I'm not sure how much collections are used: i didn't see them often. ciao, Andrea Il giorno 01/mar/2012, alle ore 07.28, Ruben Verborgh ha scritto: > 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 > 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 08:50:07 UTC