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] --contains--> [Paragraph_1] On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Laurent Rucquoy < laurent.rucq...@telemis.com> wrote: > 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) > [Document_A] --contains--> ( [Paragraph_1], [Paragraph_2] ) > [Document_B] --contains--> ( [Paragraph_2] ) > > or > > Solution 2 (defining the same predicate several times on the same subject) > [Document_A] --contains--> [Paragraph_1] > [Document_A] --contains--> [Paragraph_2] > [Document_B] --contains--> [Paragraph_2] > > > I think that the Solution 1 requires complex and resource-consuming SPARQL > update. > So to keep it simple, I would choose the Solution 2. 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 ? > > Thank you in advance for your help. > > Regards, > Laurent >
