W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Confusion about Collections

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:36:16 -0500
Message-ID: <3DE25180.655783C4@mitre.org>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Shelley Powers wrote:
> 
> The concept of Collections is introduced in this set of documents, but the
> coverage of same across the docs seems to be incomplete. For instance,
> rdf:nil is discussed in the Vocabulary document and in Semantics, but its
> only reference in the model syntax is the change item. Syntactically, how
> does rdf:nil work?
> 
> In the primer, the word 'collection' is used for describing the collection
> of attributes (properties) for a resource. This will cause confusion for
> those who read about Collections, and then see collections. Semantically,
> according to the documents, the two are not the same (sorry, Pat, couldn't
> resist).

Actually, if they read front-to-back, they'll see collections, and then
read about Collections.  However, I take your point (Collections were
added after most of that earlier stuff was written, and you run out of
synonyms after a while).  How does "group" strike you for the generic
term (can't use "set";  can't use "Bag")?

> 
> I would strongly recommend that the Primer author consider using another
> term, and also add additional material about Collections. I would also
> recommend additional coverage of Collection within the Syntax document to
> bring it more closely inline with the coverage of same in Semantics and in
> Vocabulary.

I'll fix the terminology.  As it happens, I'm working on the Collections
material right now.  What additional material about Collections would
you suggest?

--Frank

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 11:36:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT