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: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 13:28:32 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinP=2=UreqcL2Yk6zFcTNHungMZJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On 8 April 2011 11:23, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> 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?

:_1 when the Seq numbers shadow some real world assignment eg room
numbers, and each description only mentions a few

:_2 when each triple costs, eg. on pay as you go bandwidth (eg mobile
web in india people are), or huge datasets

:_3 in Rdfa where the list structure has no sugar syntax ( does 1.1?)

:_4 (maybe? unenthusiastically?) when dealing with legacy code that
has special support for Seq, eg. old Mozilla XUL stuff


Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 11:29:00 UTC

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