- From: Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 05:45:08 +0200
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
FWIW, just to mention that property paths in SPARQL1.1 should have made it a lot easier to query lists in SPARQL. Cf. examples at: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#propertypath-examples (also contains an example to query the elements of a list) Would that cover your use case? If not, what'd be missing? best, Axel -- Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna url: http://www.polleres.net/ twitter: @AxelPolleres On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:02 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > rdf:Lists are notoriously difficult to use in SPARQL if one wishes to retain the *order* of the items in the list. James Leigh and David Wood made a nice proposal a few years ago to address this problem directly at the RDF level, > http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws14 > but for whatever reasons, that work was not included in the charter of the current RDF working group. As a result people often use some other means of representing ordered lists in RDF, such as by [item, index] pairs. > > For those who use an alternate way to represent an *ordered* list of items in RDF (instead of rdf:List), I am wondering: > > 1. What *ordered* list representation do you prefer, and why? > > 2. Have there been any efforts toward standardizing alternative *ordered* list representations in RDF? E.g., has anyone written up a spec on how they prefer to do it? > > Thanks, > David >
Received on Saturday, 12 October 2013 03:45:35 UTC