- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:47:37 -0600
- To: Axel Rauschmayer <axel@rauschma.de>
- Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Im not sure what you mean by 'stable identity', but the chief problem with containers is the fact that there is no way to 'close' them. If I say that FOO is a container and A, B and C are in it, there is no way to say that this is *all* that is in it. This makes them useless for encoding structures, eg OWL syntax. Collections' overcome this difficulty. So the collection notion is widely used to layer higher- level notations onto RDF, which is probably why toolkits have special provision for them. This does not stop you using the containers, of course. They are simple enough that you hardly need syntactic sugar, right? Pat Hayes On Feb 13, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > In contrast to RDF collections (rdf:List), they have a stable > identity and don't use nested resources (=easy to remove). > Furthermore, standard RDFS inferencing can be used to infer > membership as the property rdfs:member. > > Yet, most RDF vocabularies that I know of use collections and > syntaxes such as Turtle have syntactic sugar for collections, but > not for containers. Why is that? > > Axel > > -- > Axel.Rauschmayer@ifi.lmu.de > http://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/~rauschma/ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 06:48:41 UTC