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

Re: proposal to close ISSUE-77 (Re: [ALL} agenda telecon Oct 19)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:23:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4E9EA52E.2080307@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 19/10/11 01:44, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 21:05 +0200, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> Maybe we should have resolved at the FTF to skip a week after all the
>> hard work at the FTF, but we didn't, so here is the agenda:
>>
>>     http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.19
>>
>> I suggest a short meeting, basically reviewing the FTF minutes, with
>> some reflections, plsy tackling two detailed issues.
>
> The second of those is ISSUE-77.   To sum up the discussion on the
> mailing list, I think our best chance for consensus is on this
> resolution:
>
> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 with a plan to keep rdf:Seq and RDF Collections
> as in 2004 (syntax, no semantics), but include non-normative text in one
> or more of our documents gently steering people toward best practices,
> which are (1) try to model without using either one, when feasible, and
> (2) if you need to use one, use RDF Collections structured so they can
> be serialized losslessly in Turtle using the "(...)" notation.
>
> This proposal is trying to split the difference: some people (including
> me) think it would be better to say something stronger (I'd like to
> deprecate Seq, or at least label it merely a "compatibility feature");
> some people want something weaker (like do nothing).  My sense from what
> people have posted is that everyone can live with this middle ground.
>
>     -- Sandro

ISSUE-77 is specific to Seq's and I'd like to deal with Seqs and lists 
separately because I feel we have to leave something in the docs that 
can be used for ordering and isn't spoken against in some "don't use if 
you can" way.

I don't mind how what we do to rdf:Seq but if we say "use blank nodes 
for Seq" (which then avoids the merge issues) it is a step forward (Ian 
-- skolemized system generated URIs would count as well)

Having gone back to the text around RDF Collections, some tidying up and 
bringing together would be helpful although the primer is in reasonable 
shape already.

	Andy
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 10:24:25 GMT

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