Re: SPARQL-friendly alternative to rdf:Lists?

Hello David,

I use the Collections Ontology: http://purl.org/co

rdf:Lists should also be avoided because they cannot be used with OWL.

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:02:29AM -0400, David Booth 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

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail brunni@netestate.de
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel