W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: [QB] ISSUE-29 Well-formedness

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 19:29:11 +0000
Cc: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C41A7700-6AEC-472F-AAF7-F039B3F04730@cyganiak.de>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>

On 4 Mar 2013, at 15:08, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> On 02/03/13 19:30, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> qb:order on components within a dataset must be consecutive integers starting with 1
> 
> Do you regard qb:order as mandatory?

No. I wasn't very clear. I only meant that those values that are provided (which may be zero values) must be consecutive and 1-based. However...

> In the current text we say "may be ordered by ..." so I have always regarded this as optional. Which makes this check odd.
> 
> In other applications where I have an ordering predicate I've generally found it preferable to allow orderings to be sparse, makes them easier to manage.

You are right. I find this aesthetically unpleasing, but it's sufficient for the use case.

> I'd like to propose that the only well-formedness check on qb:order be that they must be integers (which is already implied by the datatype checking).

Agreed.

Richard
Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 19:29:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:38 UTC