W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-102 (well-formed lists)

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:40:36 +0000
Message-ID: <50A0D224.4080901@webr3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 2:48 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> ISSUE-102: Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs?
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/102
>>
>>
>> PROPOSAL: Define the concept “well-formed list” in detail in RDF Schema, including a nice diagram.
> 
> +1

+0.1, as I prefer the term "simple list". A circular / 
multi(headed/tailed) / complex multi graph list is also useful, and this 
shouldn't be underplayed.

>> State that any use of terms from the collections vocabulary SHOULD be part of a well-formed list.
> 
> -1.  This is too strong. Subgraphs of a WFL graph need not be WFL, for example. For some purposes, all one needs to know is that some item is in the list somewhere: we should not make it illegal to have graphs saying just this.

-1 also. Terms from the collections vocabulary are often used to express 
simple lists, I don't see why that infers a SHOULD. Shorthand in Turtle 
and RDF/XML already make simple lists the common case, to the point that 
many don't realise you can have more complex lists. Sadly no 
doubly-linked-lists though.

Best,

Nathan
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 10:41:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT