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

Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:09:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4E99CC58.7080303@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

I think both the Seq and the List constructs present technical issues. 
Basically it is because both present the possibility of 'bad' data and 
no clarity about what one should do in the face of it.

We can easily form ill-formed lists with rdf:first or rdf:rest either 
missing or multiple.
We can easily form ill-formed sequences with duplicate or missing rdf:_2

The consumer of such ill-formed data is in a bind
And what's worse is that formally the ill-formed data is not ill-formed, 
it is just triples.

We could label both with a health warning ...


Jeremy
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 18:09:51 GMT

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