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: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:01:56 +0100
Message-Id: <65E80CD6-06B6-487A-9191-BC99207B9B10@garlik.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-04-08, at 10:23, 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?

Serialising in RDF/XML / NTriples, accessing with SPARQL 1.0, referring to e.g. the 5th member.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 13:02:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT