- From: Jan Wielemaker <jan@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:07:34 +0200
- To: Stefan Kokkelink <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
- Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Stefan Kokkelink wrote: >Jan Wielemaker wrote: > >> ... >> Throwing it at the SWI-Prolog parser suggests what you say: >> >> 'URL1' http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/:Prop each(pages) >> >> (It does not expand bags into separate tripples, but rather returns >> a term each(BagId)) >> >> But looking at it, I wonder whether is correct. Shouldn't it reify >> the inlined description and generate a (URI, DC:Prop, <BagIdOfReified>) >> tripple? >> >> I.e. if a description is the value of an attribute, reify the >> description and make the value the reified bag? > >Hm, I don't think so (although I'm not sure ;-). Without >'aboutEach' the role of a description element is >quite clear: a description element represents a (single) >resource, which can act as a target and as a source >for arcs in the RDF graph. Not so sure. SirPAC and the SWI-Prolog agree on the following: <?xml version="1.0"?> <RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:DC="http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/"> <Description about="URL1"> <DC:Prop> <Description about="pages"> <DC:Creator>Ora Lassila</DC:Creator> </Description> </DC:Prop> </Description> </RDF> to create (SirPAC): triple('http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/Creator', 'online#pages', 'Ora Lassila'). triple('http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core/Prop', 'online#URL1', 'online#pages'). Ok, the first sounds reasonable, but the second sounds a bit odd. To me, the original statement is something like ``URL1 has Prop (pages has creator Ora Lasilla)'' which RDF should state using reification. Ok, I've been on holiday after writing the SWI-Prolog-based RDF parser and not looked in detail at RDF syntax (only at the triples :-) afterwards, so please correct me if I'm talking nonsense! >When 'aboutEach' is specified, >the resource represented by the description element is 'replaced' >with the set of resources contained in the named container. >Why shouldn't the role of the resource as target >don't expand in the same manner? I agree with this statement. Regards --- Jan
Received on Tuesday, 29 August 2000 11:16:01 UTC