- From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:24:17 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 08:33:06AM -0700, Bob MacGregor wrote: > >Its also quite awkward to query for, eg. in RDQL. I guess we need some > >kind of idiom that means is a memeber of this list. Theres nothing that > >logically comes from the structure though, unlike with collections. Er, I appologise for using the word logically here! I wasn't thinking. > You are absolutely correct -- querying RDF lists using RDQL as it exists > today > makes absolutely no sense. This kind of list is intended to be used in > conjunction with some kind of recursion. If and when we have rules > (e.g., RULEML) then writing a single memberOf rule is probably all that > we would need to make it easy to extract items from a list within a query. Its hard to see how you would do that efficiently. > But it would be better if this functionality were part of a W3C standard. Yes. > There ought to be an official "memberOf" property with domain RDF:Resource > and range RDF:List that is true for each member of a list. Implementers of > RDF servers might wish to implement such a property on their own, in hopes > that the (future) RDF committee will see the light and formally bless such a > property some time in the future. Yeah, I hoped there would be such a thing, it would have to be a property that couldn't be asserted manualy to prevent (partial) modification of the list structure, so thats pretty messy. - Steve
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 12:24:18 UTC