Re: Question about rdf:parseType="Collection" syntax

>>>Graham Klyne said:
> 
> My apologies if this has already been discussed.
> 
> Is it intended that the syntax provide a way to describe a list that 
> contains literals?

No.

> If so, how does that work?
> 
> If not, that seems like a significant omission, that significantly limits 
> the utility of the new list construct.  I suppose one can always write out 
> the list "longhand" with rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest and rdf:nil.

As you know very well, rdf:parseType="Collection" was asked of RDF
Core, by WebONT to work the same way as daml:Collection.  The latter
always, and only, allowed a collection of nodes to be listed as content.

It is not a significant omission at all since you can always list any
triples you want; it is (yet another) abbreviation for triples.

Dave