W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2003

Re: What is the most common type of collection or container?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:56:23 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031110095317.02b1dfb8@127.0.0.1>
To: <jimbobbs@hotmail.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

I tend to use the collection syntax, because they're "closed" and the 
intended semantics hold up better in the face of arbitrary nbew statements 
being added to the graph.

Otherwise, I tend to use repeated properties (but that gives a set-like 
semantics).

As for the vocabulary, we're really stuck with that.  The cost of changing 
at this stage would be quite considerable, for little real benefit.

#g
--

At 00:20 10/11/03 -0500, Jimmy wrote:

>What has everyone found to be the most common type of collection or
>container used in real-world RDF documents?  I've mainly used rdf:Seq or
>rdf:Bag.  I understand the use for rdf:Alt, but I really haven't seen much
>use of collection graphs.  I'm interested to hear about other experiences.
>
>As an aside, one thing that annoys me about the revised RDF/XML syntax is
>the inconsistent use of abbreviations.  A sequence element is "Seq", while a
>description element is spelled out.  Items in a container use the HTML name,
>"li", which doesn't really mean "list item" anymore; I'd rather call the
>element "item".  I know this is a nitpick, but how about some consistency in
>naming things?
>
>
>--
>Jimmy Cerra
>
>] "A good decision is based on knowledge
>]  and not on numbers" - Plato

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 05:15:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT