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

Re: Issue #rdf-containers-otherapproaches

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:51:23 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020919165011.03cf79a0@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Brian,

That's fine with me.  I was just picking up what seemed to be 
inconsistencies.  Maybe a cross-reference from 
#rdf-containers-otherapproaches to #rdfms-seq-representation, as well as 
the other way?

#g
--

At 03:33 PM 9/19/02 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:

>At 13:38 18/09/2002 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>Brian,
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches
>>
>>Since this issue was closed as "this issue is out of scope for this WG" I 
>>note that we have since decided to include a list facility along the 
>>lines suggested:
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation
>>
>>Should first issue resolution be updated?
>
>I've been thinking not.  We decided to include support for a 
>daml:collection like list structure.  The question of alternative designs 
>for contains is more general.  A future WG may consider this more general 
>question and conclude that with parseType="Collection" no more is needed, 
>or they may conclude otherwise.  That just seems like territory we have 
>decided not to consider and in the interests of getting done I'm inclined 
>to leave it that way.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Brian

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 12:58:23 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:01 EDT