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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:42:18 -0500
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <D79BBA27-6887-42CC-8C60-32160BEBD4E8@ihmc.us>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 13:32 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> 
>>>>> (1) try to model without using either one, when feasible
>> 
>> which I took as also pushing RDF lists into the "not preferred 
>> category".  That's seems to be letting the technology influence the 
>> modelling too much.
>> 
>> The fact that an ordering construct is an RDF list which "has issues" 
>> isn't the fault of the modeller.
> 
> Right...   What I was trying to get at here was the advice I often hear
> that modelers should not be using this kind of construct at all.

Who is giving that advice? And what reasons do they give? OWL uses the vocabulary, so I dont think we should be giving advice which suggests that OWL/RDF is broken or deprecated. 

> 
> Honestly, I'm very confused about this bit.  Perhaps it's best addressed
> by having a little bit in the tutorial showing how something can be
> modeled with lists or without lists, and explaining the tradeoffs.

Im not aware of how to model something that needs lists without using lists. Can you give more details?

Pat

> 
>   -- Sandro
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wednesday, 19 October 2011 19:42:59 GMT

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