W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 1999

RE: RDF Question: about syntax of rdf container objects (Bag, Alt, Seq)

From: Walter Underwood <wunder@infoseek.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 08:52:33 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990408085233.00bc6da0@corp>
To: <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 04:51 AM 4/8/99 -0700, Jeffrey E. Sussna wrote:
>No. RDF defines alternative syntax for particular abstract models. You may
>use whichever syntax you like. The examples you included are equivalent.
>This is part of both the flexibility and seeming difficulty at first glance
>of RDF.

It isn't a "seeming" difficulty, it is a real problem. Two syntaxes
are much, much less useful than one. Having two or more ways to say 
the same thing (zip, jar, and cab for Java) is almost always a bad
idea. The reason given for the compressed RDF syntax, "it's smaller",
is never a good enough reason. Either use the small one, use the clear 
one, or make one that is small enough and clear enough. Specs are
the wrong place to prevaricate.

wunder



--
Walter R. Underwood
wunder@infoseek.com
wunder@best.com (home)
http://software.infoseek.com/cce/ (my product)
http://www.best.com/~wunder/
1-408-543-6946
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 12:03:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:26 GMT