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

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

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:32:24 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020424082430.03a0a400@joy.songbird.com>
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 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:35 EDT