Re: Question about RDF collections

Thank you all for your help ! On 22 September 2016 at 14:20, Nikolaos Beredimas wrote: > Just remember that there is no ordering in this. > > [Document_A] --contains--> [Paragraph_1] > [Document_A] --contains--> [Paragraph_2] > [Document_B] --contains--> [Paragraph_2] > > is

Re: Question about RDF collections

Just remember that there is no ordering in this. [Document_A] --contains--> [Paragraph_1] [Document_A] --contains--> [Paragraph_2] [Document_B] --contains--> [Paragraph_2] is equivalent to [Document_A] --contains--> [Paragraph_2] [Document_B] --contains--> [Paragraph_2] [Document_A]

Re: Question about RDF collections

It is not only safe, but completely normal and used much, much more frequently than solution 1. Remember, RDF is a graph, so you can connect resource nodes however you like. Collection could be useful here if you want to maintain the ordering of Paragraphs in a Document. On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at

Re: Question about RDF collections

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Laurent Rucquoy wrote: > But, I don't know if > it's safe and if it's a good practice to define the same predicate several > times on the same subject ? It's absolutely fine. That's how, e.g., DBpedia stores abstracts in different

Question about RDF collections

I have a "Document" resource which could contain many "Paragraph" resources. A same "Paragraph" resource could also be contained by different "Document" resources. What is the most relevant model to translate such a case in RDF ? I have two solutions: Solution 1 (using RDF collections)