- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:32:24 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 02:40 PM 4/23/02 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > There isn't any such notion in RDF. > >Not yet; but I say, again: > >|So the next proposal is: >| >| * add parseType="collection" to RDF/xml; >| >| * add rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:nil too. >| >| * specify that parseType="collection" >| >| is notation for first/rest/nil triples >| ala daml:collection. > >By 'ala daml:collection' I meant: including >the fact that first/rest are functional. I'm kind-of uncomfortable with this: it seems to be a big semantic addition to the nature of RDF, which I thought was going to be dealt with at "higher" layers. With this, adding triples to a valid graph can force an inconsistency. Now, if the first/rest triples were considered to be "dark", I might feel easier (though there's still this new idea that a bunch of triples can somehow be ill-formed). I'm finding first/rest lists to be very useful in practice, but I'm worried about the possibilities for unintended consequences here, especially adding features so late in the WG cycle. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 03:37:07 UTC