Comments on: Rules for RDF Modelling http://community.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/archives/2007/06/02/rules-for-rdf-modelling geek tools and the scholar Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:59:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Bruce D'Arcus http://community.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/archives/2007/06/02/rules-for-rdf-modelling/comment-page-1#comment-1110 Bruce D'Arcus Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:09:06 +0000 http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2007/06/02/rules-for-rdf-modelling#comment-1110 <p>Yeah, that makes sense Pat. So I think I'll stay with the approach I use here (the explicit group modelling using a collection for the members) unless someone convinces me otherwise. It seems the simplest and also the most flexible.</p> Yeah, that makes sense Pat. So I think I’ll stay with the approach I use here (the explicit group modelling using a collection for the members) unless someone convinces me otherwise. It seems the simplest and also the most flexible.

]]> By: pat hayes http://community.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/archives/2007/06/02/rules-for-rdf-modelling/comment-page-1#comment-1109 pat hayes Sun, 03 Jun 2007 05:35:57 +0000 http://netapps.muohio.edu/blogs/darcusb/darcusb/archives/2007/06/02/rules-for-rdf-modelling#comment-1109 <p>Well, I think that posting misses a basic point. He seems to be assuming that the ordering can be computed somehow (eg lexical ordering or numerical ordering or ordering by date), but in your example it can’t. If the ordering is part of the actual data, you have to actually record it somehow in the actual data. No way around this. And I don’t think RDF collections are all that bad. Any other way is going to use a similar number of triples, for sure. If bnodes really bother you, you can just have an ordering property on the items directly:</p> <p>b:member ex:net/3 b:member ex:net/4 ex:net/3 b:nextinorder ex:net/4</p> <p>but this is dangerous if the same items can be in more than one collection. Or, you can have a whole lot of b:member properties which encode the ordering (rather like an RDF container)</p> <p>b:memberOne ex:net/3 b:memberTwo ex:net/4</p> <p>but then you have to make sure things don’t get pearshaped by having missing information.</p> <p>Anyway, my advice is, use the collections already. They work, and whats a few extra triples. Moore’s law will fix that in a few months anyway.</p> <p>Pat</p> Well, I think that posting misses a basic point. He seems to be assuming that the ordering can be computed somehow (eg lexical ordering or numerical ordering or ordering by date), but in your example it can’t. If the ordering is part of the actual data, you have to actually record it somehow in the actual data. No way around this. And I don’t think RDF collections are all that bad. Any other way is going to use a similar number of triples, for sure. If bnodes really bother you, you can just have an ordering property on the items directly:

b:member ex:net/3 b:member ex:net/4 ex:net/3 b:nextinorder ex:net/4

but this is dangerous if the same items can be in more than one collection. Or, you can have a whole lot of b:member properties which encode the ordering (rather like an RDF container)

b:memberOne ex:net/3 b:memberTwo ex:net/4

but then you have to make sure things don’t get pearshaped by having missing information.

Anyway, my advice is, use the collections already. They work, and whats a few extra triples. Moore’s law will fix that in a few months anyway.

Pat

]]>