W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2013

Re: SPARQL-friendly alternative to rdf:Lists?

From: Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 05:45:08 +0200
Cc: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A1C59CDA-27FE-473D-8546-BC3AFD8B55FA@polleres.net>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:35 UTC