W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > October 2006

Re: better support for bnodes

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 07:24:36 -0400
Message-ID: <452A3174.3010705@mit.edu>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Hi Ivan,

Ivan Herman wrote:
> 1- technically it is nice. But it may be difficult to explain the
> mechanism for a lambda user who does not really know what is going on in
> RDF... It can be done, probably, but it will not be obvious.

There may be some inherent complexity to explaining bnodes to a lambda
user :) That said, one may not need to get too deep into bnodes to
explain this. One simple way to explain it is: we use "REL" to set up a
new relationship between two pieces of data, and the object is either in
the document, or specified by HREF.

> 2- a side issue, which goes actually against the example I gave.
> Although the usage for <ul><ol><nl> for Bag/Seq/Alt seems to be an
> obvious choice (and works well), what I miss is the encoding of lists
> (maybe that was already discussed elsewhere, sorry if I missed it). As
> you know, the Bag/Seq/Alt are not really part of the core semantics of
> RDF(S), they are 'added on' features, so to say. Moreover, there are
> lots of discussions about removing them from RDF altogether (the fact
> that the _1, etc, bring in a potentially infinite amount of resources
> was a significant problem on the theoretical side, for example). Lists
> are much more important, they are semantically more stable. As such, I
> would prefer the <ul>...</ul> to map on lists by default (and some extra
> tweaks should be done for the containers). As I said, maybe this is
> already settled, but I have not seen it.

I don't think we have an encoding of lists... though if RDF containers
are going away, then maybe we need to rethink what UL and OL map to. Can
you point us to the right RDF specs for lists and what the current
thinking is?

Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 11:24:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:21 UTC