Re: Piggy-Bank feedback

From: Frank Manola <>
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 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:17 EDT