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

Re: Feedback request

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:14:24 -0500
Message-ID: <3DC27E30.6080508@mitre.org>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Dave Beckett wrote:

>>>>pat hayes said:
>>>>
snip
>>
>>Terminology question: now we have lists, should the term 'container' 
>>be understood to include lists as well as seqs, bags and alts? If so, 
>>does anyone have an suggestion for a generic term for the older 
>>containers? (Simple containers? Open containers? Bushy containers?)
>>
>>------
>>
> 
> I'm sure we are going to get people confused with collections and
> containers.  Since we decided not to create a new way to do seqs,
> bags, alts (ha ha!), we should try to be as distinctive as possible.
> 
> I think the new things should have the longer name.  I've been using
> closed collections but that doesn't seem to have grabbed people much.
> 


The problem with "closed collections" is it's not obvious to me how they 
can be "closed", given the lack of semantics of the properties involved. 
   Presumably RDF/XML will generate the well-structured lists we imagine 
this is for, but it seems to me people can write all sorts of weird 
stuff using rdf:first, rdf:rest, and so on, and (e.g.) add those 
properties to things that started off as those well-structured lists. 
This is why I don't talk about the presumed "closed" aspects of these 
collections in the Primer.

--Frank



-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 07:58:14 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:55 EDT