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 14:27:27 +0100
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7A80BB9A-9738-425A-9345-C7D672B722FC@garlik.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
On 2011-04-11, at 14:01, Steve Harris wrote:

> 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.

Sorry, not RDF/XML, that has syntactic sugar for it.

You can add sparse vectors to the list though.

- 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 13:27:51 GMT

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