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 19:56:51 -0500
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1D184ED0-BD47-44B2-9203-1AE06F89CFE9@ihmc.us>
To: Ian Davis <id@talis.com>

On Oct 15, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Ian Davis wrote:

> On 15 Oct 2011, at 19:35, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 15/10/11 19:09, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> although Seq are very fragile and lists are merely fragile.  The duplicate rdf:_2 by merging is really nasty.
>> 
> 
> 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 have slowly come to understand that any bug is someone else's feature. 

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 00:57:27 GMT

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