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: <>
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.


Walter R. Underwood
wunder@best.com (home)
http://software.infoseek.com/cce/ (my product)
Received on Thursday, 8 April 1999 12:03:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:12 UTC