Re: RDF lists/arrays and n-ary relations [was Re: OWL and RDF lists]

Thanks, David :-)

Yes, it is definitely more than an array.
Any suggestions for a name?
Having a good name for a thing can be very helpful in focussing discussion, now and in the future.

It’s sort of like a “half-ladder” to me, in terms of a data structure (which it isn’t, of course).
Maybe there is a name that captures this sort of knowledge pattern?

> On 23 Sep 2022, at 14:20, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/23/22 07:16, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> > I don't think talking about "lists" at all is a good term.
> 
> Fully agree.  We need arrays, not lists.
> 
> > . . .
> > For ordered lists, Dan Brickley made a suggestion some time ago
> > (on a github issue that I can't find right now, unfortunately):
> > they could be encoded using RDF-star, like that:
> >
> >>    # Example 10 expanded
> >>    <#paper1> schema:creator
> >>        <#alice> {| ex:order 1 |},
> >>        <#bob> {| ex:order 2 |},
> >>        <#charlie> {| ex:order 3, ex:last |}.
> >>
> > It has the advantage of keeping the "simple" triple for each
> > creator, and is quite easy to query in SPARQL.
> 
> Yes, but note that that example is *different* from the basic use
> of an array, because it asserts the schema:creator relation on
> every element of the array -- not on the array as a whole.
> It is like applying a "map" operator to an array of
> people, in order to assert them all as schema:creators.
> 
> On 9/23/22 00:21, Anthony Moretti wrote:
> > all the proposals are for syntactic sugar, but please
> > ignore them, it's clear I haven't considered things well
> > enough. Apologies for any time wasted.
> 
> Not wasted!  They were useful contributions to the conversation.  Please
> continue to contribute.  We are collectively figuring this stuff out as
> we go along, and the process benefits from diverse perspectives and ideas.
> 
> Thanks,
> David Booth
>

Received on Friday, 23 September 2022 14:51:51 UTC