Yes that works too. And it's a standard pattern that I've also seen. I don't see an issue with multiple presentations, as the blank nodes would be specific to the presentation - but yes the query syntax could be somewhat challenging...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Egbert Gramsbergen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 20 May 2010 10:40 > To: [email protected]; Fedora Users > Subject: Re: [Fedora-commons-users] Object Order Using RDF > > > In the slides example, you could also use rdf collections: > > Presentation hasSlides _1. > _1 rdf:first Slide1. _1 rdf:rest _2. > _2 rdf:first Slide2. _2 rdf:rest _3. > ...etc. > _n rdf:first Sliden. _n rdf:rest rdf:nil. > > So you can easily define different presentations reusing > slides in any order. > Given a Slide, it is easy to write a Sparql query for > previous and next slides in any Presentation. Confining this > to a **specific** Presentation is a bit more challenging. > Unless I have missed something in the Sparql recommendation > or otherwise, you will need an ontology to define a > transitive superproperty of rdf:rest and do some inference > from there. Admitted, your solution would not require a similar step. > > Egbert Gramsbergen > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: woensdag 19 mei 2010 22:28 > To: Fedora Users > Subject: Re: [Fedora-commons-users] Object Order Using RDF > > That's very true, and your example is enlightening. In that > case, I would reach for the (as-yet-unavailable) blank node, > and develop something like: > > Slide hasNext _1. > _1 hasValue NextSlide1. > _1 hasContext FirstPresentationVersion. > > and > > Slide hasNext _2. > _2 hasValue NextSlide2. > _2 hasContext OtherPresentationVersion. > > I don't think there's any question that the object graph can > evidence either point of view, but not under the current > limitation. I understand that work is getting underway to use > named graphs to break this barrier? > > --- > A. Soroka > Digital Research and Scholarship R & D > the University of Virginia Library > > > > On May 19, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Steve Bayliss wrote: > > > Maybe a better example would be a presentation composed of > a number of > > slides. After creating the first version, I create another version > > with the slides unchanged but in a different order. In this case I > > think there's a good argument for modelling order as the > order of the > > relationships from the slides to the version rather than treating > > order as a property of the individual slides. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-commons-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-users > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-commons-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Fedora-commons-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fedora-commons-users
