- From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:44:03 +0100
- To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Just a quick comment on this thread. We've faced something a little similar in the POWDER WG [1] where we're working on defining a set of resources [2], for example, all resources on example.com. That's quite easy for us: <wdr:ResourceSet> <wdr:includeHosts>example.com</wdr:includeHosts> </wdr:ResourceSet> But note the plural in the property name. Actually this takes a white space separated list of hosts so if you want both example.com and example.org in your resource set you do this: <wdr:ResourceSet> <wdr:includeHosts>example.com example.org</wdr:includeHosts> </wdr:ResourceSet> No rdf:list, even though, well, it's a list encoded in RDF. We're working on datatype doc that should support this formally, currently in un-official form at [3]. The thinking here being that, in order to process POWDER, you need to do a little bit of non-Sem Web processing so delivering the parameters that define a Resource Set as a white space separated list is OK and probably pretty efficient. The recent discussion on the applicability of rdf:List (and to a lesser extent Alt and Seq) seems to suggest that keeping away from rdf:List was good idea too? What we really want, in a slightly different context, is a single SPARQL query to return the items in a Collection, but I guess that's just asking to much! Phil. [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-powder-grouping-20070709/ [3] http://www.dicom.uninsubria.it/~andrea.perego/powder/?doc=xsd Danny Ayers wrote: > I'm late to the thread, so apologies if this has been covered already: > > Harry's data, reworked to use literals, would look something like: > > _:lola > vCard:additionalNames ( "Edward" "Reeves" ) . > > - the object here is a list, so the plural-named property seems reasonable. > > Similar information could be conveyed as: > > _:lola vCard:additionalName "Edward" ; > vCard:additionalName "Reeves" . > > (or similar, intermediated with an rdf:Bag) > > What I'm wondering is, is there any reason (beyond saving space) for > not using both forms simultaneously? Have the benefits of rdf:List > along with SPARQL-friendliness..? > > btw, here's a fun way of querying lists (not *that* ugly a beast): > > SELECT ?w ?x ?y ?z > { > OPTIONAL { > ?person vCard:additionalNames ( ?w ) . > } > OPTIONAL { > ?person vCard:additionalNames ( ?w ?x ) . > } > OPTIONAL { > ?person vCard:additionalNames ( ?w ?x ?y ) . > } > OPTIONAL { > ?person vCard:additionalNames ( ?w ?x ?y ?z ) . > } > } > > Cheers, > Danny.
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 11:44:40 UTC