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

On 23/09/2022 15:20, David Booth wrote:
> > . . .
> > 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.

It is different indeed. But it seems to me that, in many cases, lists 
are a modeling artifact used to convey the order and the "closedness" of 
a set of values.

If we can design other efficient design patterns for conveying order and 
"closedness" (such as the one proposed above), I believe that the need 
for representing lists would not be as pressing as suggested in this thread.

>
> 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.
+1 !
>
> Thanks,
> David Booth
>