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

On 15 Oct 2011 23:35, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 19:35 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > I think the only complete solution will involve putting structural
> > literals into RDF itself, so they are not triple-encoded and can't be
> > 'bad'.  When treated as first-class literals with equality rules,
> > accessors, and combining rules, then implementations can store them
> > specially, provide good APIs, and application programmer won't have to
> > learn about the encoding rules.
>
> That sounds pretty hard.  Do you have some design in mind...?
>

This sounds like a list datatype that rdf stores could handle internally.
Many already handle dates and provide special functions to access date
components.

>     - Sandro
>
>

Ian

>
>