Re: The correct way to define a finite unordered set?

Hi,

If you want to have OWL2 compatible statements, I would suggest to use the Collections Ontology (http://purl.org/co).

Have a nice day :-)

S.

> Il giorno 28 ott 2017, alle ore 19:39, Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> ha scritto:
> 
> What is the correct way to describe a finite unordered set (listing all
> its elements)?
> 
> Should I use rdf:Bag?
> 
>> From https://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/
> 
> <http://example.org/courses/6.001>
>    s:students [
>        a rdf:Bag;
>        rdf:_1 <http://example.org/students/Amy>;
>        rdf:_2 <http://example.org/students/Mohamed>;
>        rdf:_3 <http://example.org/students/Johann>;
>        rdf:_4 <http://example.org/students/Maria>;
>        rdf:_5 <http://example.org/students/Phuong>.
>    ].
> 
> Wouldn't it be better like the following (with some namespace rdfx
> which is not defined by the standards)?
> 
> <http://example.org/courses/6.001>
>    s:students [
>        a rdfx:Bag;
>        rdfx:Element <http://example.org/students/Amy>;
>        rdfx:Element <http://example.org/students/Mohamed>;
>        rdfx:Element <http://example.org/students/Johann>;
>        rdfx:Element <http://example.org/students/Maria>;
>        rdfx:Element <http://example.org/students/Phuong>.
>    ].
> 
> The first example contains unnecessary for unordered set position
> numbers. The second example seems more reasonable.
> 
> What it the right way?
>