Re: vCard confusion and RDF insufficiency

I agree with Garret, and would not want to see rdf:Seq used.

Tim

On 2007-07 -26, at 13:04, Garret Wilson wrote:

>
> Harry Halpin wrote:
>> I have yet to see anything resembling a substantial objection to  
>> using
>> rdf:Seq rather than rdf:List. Does *anyone* object to rdf:Seq, which
>> seems to be able to take literals as objects with an ordering  
>> constraint?
>>
>
> Consider:
>
> * Bruce: "Everyone I have talked to has discouraged use of  
> rdf:Seq." (semantic-web@w3.org 2007-07-26)
>
> * Benjamin: "Yes, that's a general suggestion, which usually coves  
> both collections and containers, as they introduce intermediate  
> nodes." (semantic-web@w3.org 2007-07-26)
>
> * Dublin Core: "The RDF Container constructs rdf:Bag, rdf:Alt and  
> rdf:Seq are no longer provided as an alternative for constructing  
> ordered and unordered sets." ( http://dublincore.org/documents/dc- 
> rdf-notes/#sect-5 )
>
> * For rdf:Seq, you can have multiple rdf:_3 properties, for example.
>
> * For rdf:Seq, you could have a rdf:_2809 property with no other  
> properties, for example.
>
> * There is no way to specify the end of an rdf:Seq list.
[..]