Is it indeed difficult or impossible to write a SPARQL query over rdf:List, particulary with the use of owl:sameAs as in: <vCard:additionalNames rdf:parseType="Collection"> <rdf:Description owl:sameAs="Edward"/> <rdf:Description owl:sameAs="Reeves"/> </vCard:additionalNames>. Can someone tell me precisely why and if so, does rdf:Seq help? Currently consensus is heavily drifting towards rdf:List, but querying in SPARQL is important. -harry Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: > >> Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > [sni[] >>> I'm now totally lost. >>> >>> Everyone I have talked to has discouraged use of rdf:Seq. AFAIK, you >>> cannot really query it reliably with SPARQL either, though am not sure >>> of that. >> Is that true? > [snip] > > Which? That everyone bruce has talked to discourages use of rdf:Seq? I > don't know. I certainly do so discourage. But I discourage use of > rdf:List too :) > > I don't know about "reliably". Someone later in the thread gave a > pretty good query for getting at the values of containers. Ordering > generally is done by term sorting, so _1 _2, etc. should work fine. > > There are implementation specific extensions (both actual and > possible) e.g. > http://thefigtrees.net/lee/sw/sparql-faq#transitiv8 > > Back in the day, some engines had trouble with large numbers of > properties, so the coined properties in a seq could cause trouble if > one had no special ordering of them (e.g., if you naively mapped > properties to tables, that could suck). But that strikes me as > implementor lameness, which is also to be discouraged. :) > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 22:38:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:01 UTC