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: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:24:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4E99DDE7.2030100@epimorphics.com>
To: Ian Davis <id@talis.com>
CC: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 15/10/11 20:00, Ian Davis wrote:
> I consider that a feature not a bug. There are times when you want to
> rank things equally in a list. Its not that hard to handle in code
> with nested loops.

I agree there are can be such times -- and bags are useful sometimes as 
well (the opposite - no order, with duplicates).

rdf:Seq is not spec'ed as a rank though, only the order,

"the numerical ordering of the container membership properties of the 
container is intended to be significant."

and it says nothing about merging two graphs and dealing with Seq 
overlap. Best to use a blank node for the subject of the Seq.

You could subclass and impose addition definitions.  Are there any 
example of subclassing rdf:Seq?

It does go against the idea of making the encoded structures nicer to 
use by APIs if in some places the structures have a specific meaning of 
the offsets.  An API that presents a "Seq" may mangle them.

A bag of (rank, item) pairs would presumably be better but more complicated.


(at least these could have been :1 :2 :3 in Turtle!)
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 19:24:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:01 UTC