Re: Piggy-Bank feedback

From: Frank Manola <fmanola_at_acm.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:22:19 -0500

Further to the message below: If you use typed nodes for the individual
students, the students show up, but they aren't connected in any obvious
way to the course (i.e., via the "students" relation).

--Frank

Frank Manola wrote:
> A further data point on this thread about dealing with untyped nodes.
> I've been going through the exercise of looking at various examples from
> the RDF Primer (as individual files) in PiggyBank. One situation where
> not dealing with untyped nodes creates a bit of a problem is if anyone
> wants to use parseType="Collection" (example 17), since the generated
> blank nodes are untyped, and as a result the structure of the list
> doesn't show up. I suppose you could always create the lists in
> "longhand" (example 18) and define types for the intermediate nodes
> explicitly, but that's a bit of pain.
>
> --Frank
>
> PS: I'd note in this connection that under the RDFS semantic
> conditions, these blank nodes *do* have a type, namely rdf:List. Just
> another complication.
>
Received on Fri Feb 11 2005 - 22:13:47 EST