W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: addressing requirements around daml:collection (rdfms-seq-representation)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:56:58 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101502b8e67718c2e0@[65.217.30.94]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>I picked up the ball on this 28 Mar:
>
>"Volunteers: DanC, Lynn Stein (some timing issues need to be resolved),
>Jos
>De Roo,
>Will participate in RDF core working group discussion."
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0352.html
>
>I got some inspiration from today's RDF Core telcon
>(and in discussion that followed after the formal
>telcon was adjourned).
>
>In case Lynn finds time to participate, I'm also summarizing
>the history here. (Brian, maybe you could link this
>message or some of the stuff I cite here from the
>rdfms-seq-representation issue)
>

<giant snip>

>
>Appendix: some stuff I found while researching
>this message. I thought I'd cite them in
>the message, but they didn't turn out to be
>directly relevant. But rather than throwing
>them away, I think I'll append them.

Well, there is a relevance here in that what I say in the following 
message is pretty much what I was going to put into the next draft of 
the MT, and I was assuming that it was kind of broadly accepted. If 
it isn't, and if this vision of RDF containers isn't close to being 
right, then I don't know how to put them into the MT. Which is fine, 
but not if we expect to get a final draft of a complete MT by next 
week, as I promised on the telecon today. I need a non-moving target, 
guys.

>Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f)
>From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
>Date: Mon, Feb 04 2002
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0072.html
>
>a theory of rdf:Bags
>From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
>Date: Sun, Feb 17 2002
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0483
>
>hm... what ever became of "ACTION: 2002-02-15#4 PatH: Send a few
>paragraphs to the list to address this" --
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476
>that action isn't mentioned in the next week's minutes.

God, I HATE looking through old minutes. Hmmm, I had totally 
forgotten that, I confess. And at this date I have no idea what I was 
going to say about it. I think it was just going to be a kind of 
elementary observation that there is no natural way to define 'rest' 
in an ordinal representation without doing arithmetic.  Nothing deep, 
Im sure.

Pat

PS in that same minutes I found this, BTW. So why are we still 
talking about it??

19: Issue rdf-containers-otherapproaches
The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various
awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design?

Propose:

   o   the WG resolves this issue is out of scope for this WG
       but places the issue on the list of to be considered by a
       future WG.

See:
   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches

APPROVED
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 21:57:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:34 EDT