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

Re: Container Deprecation

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:09:22 +0200
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <3524976D-FDD5-4D5E-AD09-E74079F45ED9@w3.org>
To: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu>
Jesse,

- There is no formal resolution on containers yet. There has been some discussions, and deprecating containers has indeed been raised as one of the candidates.

- However, your usage of rdfs:member v.a.v. lists (a.k.a. collections) is a slightly different question. At them moment, there is no semantic relationships in RDFS between the terms used for lists (rdf:first, rdf:next, or rdf:List) and rdfs:member. Put it another way if I have 

<a> <b> (<c> <d> <e>) .

I cannot infer something like

<c> rdfs:member _:a . # _:a is the 'head' of the list above.

I may have misunderstood what you said, though.

Ivan




On Aug 26, 2011, at 20:59 , Jesse Weaver wrote:

> Hello RDF working group.
> 
> Has there been consensus concerning deprecation of RDF containers in 1.1? 
> Specifically, I am curious about the rdfs:member property.  It is very
> useful for stating membership of something in a uniform way (unlike using 
> rdf:_1, rdf:_2, ...) and in a single triple (unlike using rdf:first and
> rdf:rest).  I am well aware of the distinction between containers and
> collections, but it seems that RDF really needs something as simple as
> rdfs:member.
> 
> Please let me know.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Jesse Weaver
> Ph.D. Student, Patroon Fellow
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~weavej3/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
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 Monday, 29 August 2011 12:07:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT