W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Call for agenda items

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:09:12 +0000
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20031106110912.7b125a16.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:41:44 +0000, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> At this stage of the game, if we choose to make any substantive changes in 
> response to these comments I think they should be simple excisions.
> I could see removing the preference for the first Alt as an excision.  Or 
> simply removing Alt all together?  There's nothing special about rdf:Alt 
> that users couldn't define their own vocabulary for it.  (Personally, I 
> think Alt is rather like the human appendix:  of little practical value and 
> a potential source of inflammation.)

We already decided not to change RDF containers, I don't see any point
doing that further now - it is not a critical change.

RDF Semantics says on Alt:
"things of type rdf:Alt are considered to represent a collection of
alternatives, possibly with a preference ordering"
-- 3.2.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Containers

RDF Concepts & AS WD says nothing.
RDF/XML WD deals with the syntax use only.

RDF Primer does mention the prefered value rdf:_1

"An Alt container is intended to have at least one member, identified by
the property rdf:_1. This member is intended to be considered as the
default or preferred value. Other than the member identified as rdf:_1,
the order of the remaining elements is not significant."
-- just after http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#example15

Maybe there is some work to make these a little more aligned.

Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 06:10:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:08 UTC