- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:02:53 -0400
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
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. [..]
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 19:02:57 UTC