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:
>>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 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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC