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

Re: SPARQL-friendly alternative to rdf:Lists?

From: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:13:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFPX2kA_k9F++X5iRxWNCMGX-c2HRmiUbdw-umhGnv_B4n4joA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Dear David,
I apologize I just realized I replied to you only. I resend my email to the
group.

We experimented with ordering many years ago because of the needs we had in
several software projects.

One of the needs was the representation of the ordering of authors of
publications, but we had many others including representation of the flow
of the scientific discourse in publications.

The results are summarized in Collections Ontology (already mentioned by
Micheal):

The paper explain many of the principles and features:
http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/collections-ontology-creating-and-handling-collections-owl-2-dl-frameworks-0

Wiki/Ontology
http://code.google.com/p/collections-ontology/w/list

Best,
Paolo


On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>wrote:

>
> 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
>



-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
Member of the MGH Biomedical Informatics Core
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s),
may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately.
Received on Saturday, 12 October 2013 17:13:28 UTC

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