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

Re: Container Deprecation

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:52:44 +0200
Cc: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, W3C Chairs of the RDF WG <team-rdf-chairs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <654D86E9-886E-4C22-AE1D-B9851C999F03@w3.org>
To: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu>
Jesse,

I understand. This request has not been raised before and it is then, indeed, is not related to the deprecation issue.

I leave it to the chairs and the WG in general whether this should be raised as an issue.

Ivan

On Aug 29, 2011, at 21:42 , Jesse Weaver wrote:

> Hi Ivan.
> 
> Perhaps my language seemed to reflect some conflation between containers
> and collections, so I wasn't very clear.  I am thinking at a higher level 
> of just something that contains something.  I don't care if it's an RDF
> container or RDF collection.  All I want to do is represent a group of
> things (loosely defined, I have avoided the word "set" here) in RDF.  It
> would be nice to be able to say in a single statement:
> 
> <group> <contains> <thing> .
> 
> You cannot do this with RDF collections.  You can do it with RDF
> containers using rdfs:member.  It seems that we should have some way of
> doing this, regardless of whether RDF containers are deprecated.
> 
> Jesse Weaver
> Ph.D. Student, Patroon Fellow
> Tetherless World Constellation
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~weavej3/
> ==============Original message text===============
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 8:09:22 EDT Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> 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.htmlFOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ===========End of original message text===========
> 
> 
> 


----
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 Tuesday, 30 August 2011 06:53:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT