W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2007

Re: update on vCard edits and The Compromise

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:17:55 +0100
Message-Id: <7455F7AC-1F9A-4FE4-B00B-26F8ADAF3195@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@gmail.com>, bnowack@appmosphere.com, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>

On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:

> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
[sni[]
>> I'm now totally lost.
>>
>> Everyone I have talked to has discouraged use of rdf:Seq. AFAIK, you
>> cannot really query it reliably with SPARQL either, though am not  
>> sure
>> of that.
> Is that true?
[snip]

Which? That everyone bruce has talked to discourages use of rdf:Seq?  
I don't know. I certainly do so discourage. But I discourage use of  
rdf:List too :)

I don't know about "reliably". Someone later in the thread gave a  
pretty good query for getting at the values of containers. Ordering  
generally is done by term sorting, so _1 _2, etc. should work fine.

There are implementation specific extensions (both actual and  
possible) e.g.
	http://thefigtrees.net/lee/sw/sparql-faq#transitiv8

Back in the day, some engines had trouble with large numbers of  
properties, so the coined properties in a seq could cause trouble if  
one had no special ordering of them (e.g., if you naively mapped  
properties to tables, that could suck). But that strikes me as  
implementor lameness, which is also to be discouraged. :)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 21:18:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:58 UTC