W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: RDF-ISSUE-24 (Deprecate Containers): Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? [Cleanup tasks]

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:29:48 +0200
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E13B04AF-9DAD-4806-AEB5-40256E11813B@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:23 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 8 Apr 2011, at 10:05, Steve Harris wrote:
>>> rdf:Seq does have some merit, and some serious 'in the wild' usage.
>> Agreed. While far from perfect, in some situations it's preferable to RDF Lists.
> Can you give examples where rdf:Seq is preferable to rdf:List?

Although a pain even with rdf:Seq, it seems to be easier to reproduce the order of items after a SPARQL query if the data uses Seq rather than lists...


> Cheers,
> Richard

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 09:29:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC