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

SW is a mean to reach something, not an end. I really don't care if Java,
JavaScript, spaces or tabs are used in the code.

If your applications run on top of a relational database the only things
you have for granted are tables, rows, colums, etc. regardless of the inner
workings of a particular database engine. And that's a good thing.

But if we still going the way we are going up today we'll end up building
'databases' for the sole purpose of building further 'databases' for which
users will never be able to use in any form for the lack of tables,
columns, rows, etc...

Best,
Sebastián Samaruga
---
http://exampledotorg.blogspot.com

On Oct 28, 2017 3:29 PM, "Silvio Peroni" <silvio.peroni@unibo.it> wrote:

> 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?
>
>