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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 19:54:06 -0500
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <C0ED77A8-AEA6-4F7E-893A-46FC2D654228@ihmc.us>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

On Oct 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> ...<An excellent review of the issues>....
> 
> 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.


+1000. 

So, lets DO this. I really don't think it will be all that hard to do, and it would have huge benefits for many users and implementors, not least in interfacing RDF to other systems. Hey, RDF+LISP, whats not to like? 

Also, regarding the issue in the subject line, I propose that we refrain from saying any part of current RDF is archaic or deprecated or oldfashioned. Leave it all in there, and let the world decide what is best to use. For arguments in support of this position, I offer first the maxim, if it aint broke dont fix it, and second, our own experience in trying to fix plain literals (surely the simplest idea since blancmange.) 

Pat
 
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 00:54:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT