On Mar 19, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Matt wrote:
The following of rdflib.Graph.Graph
def seq(self, subject):
"""Check if subject is an rdf:Seq
If yes, it returns a Seq class instance, None otherwise.
"""
if (subject, RDF.type, RDF.Seq) in self:
return Seq(self, subject)
else:
return None
would make more sense if it were named collection not seq and tested
for more than just RDF.Seq - I do this by looking for any type derived
from RDFS.Container (which requires the schema definitions of these to
be loaded into the graph), but even just testing for RDF.Seq, RDF.Bag,
and RDF.Alt would be a good start. For backwards compatibility I
imagine it would be better to add alt and bag as their own methods as
well as a general collection interface.
The same also goes for
class Seq(object):
"""Wrapper around an RDF Seq resource ....
The mechanism in here works fine for Alt and Bag also.
If this makes sense, I don't mind adding in support for these. I have
also developed support for rdf Collections (i.e. the first rest
structure), which I could add in.
Makes sense, I think. Go for it. I recently was thinking along the
same lines when I had to switch some of my application code from
Collections to Seq. In the process I ended up putting the
conditionals in my application code to support either.
Just in case you haven't noticed it... there's a method called items
on Graph that does the first rest dance. And there's
rdflib.Collection -- would be good to unify the whole lot into one
spot that works well.
cheers
matt
(a.k.a greenman on freenode)
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://rdflib.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
Daniel Krech, http://eikeon.com/
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://rdflib.net/mailman/listinfo/dev
