- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:21:07 +0000
- To: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 25 Mar 2013, at 18:55, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: >> The downsides of the rdf:List approach are that rdf:Lists are a bit icky to work with in some RDF toolkits. It's also a bit more verbose as the example shows. > > Just clarify, does this mean that if I have a container with large number of items, in the rdf:List approach you mentioned, do I need to have a rdf:List containing all of them to specify the order ? Yes, in my proposal, if you want to have a large container *and* want to specify its order, you'd have a long rdf:List list containing all members. > Is that what you meant by *verbose* ? Yes. For a container of n items, specifying the order in this way takes approximately 2*n triples, as opposed to the 1 triple needed in the ldp:orderProperty approach. This is a clear downside, but worth it in my eyes. Best, Richard
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 19:21:25 UTC