W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Trying to close ISSUE-14

From: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:37:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAOEr1nyANVJLUH9HpwwxKmhvP4vhQ+Jqc=8yUeqTKgfU014wA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
Cc: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <
nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/2/2013 1:47 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>>
>>> why should order always be a function of some na´ve ordering on a visible
>>> facet?
>>>
>> I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that data-based ordering should be
>> allowed as an option.
>
>
> +1.
>
> I think there are valid use cases for both scenarios. I think Raul's
> proposal can be used for explicit ordering by introducing an index (and
> there might be other intuitive ways). For example,
>
> <container> ldp:order _:l1 .
> _:l1 rdf:first _:event_2012-12-01 .
> _:l1 rdf:rest _:l2 .
> _:l2 rdf:first _:event_2013-01-14 .
> _:l2 rdf:rest _:l3 .
> _:l3 rdf:first _:event_2013-03-04 .
> _:l3 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
>
> IIUC, above can be represented something like
>

I meant

<container> ldp:containerOrder _:order .
_order ldp:containerSortPredicate x:index ;
           ldp:ldp:containerSortOrder ldp:ascending .
_:event_2012-12-01 x:index 1 .
_:event_2013-01-14 x:index 2 .
_:event_2013-03-04 x:index 3 .

Best Regards,
Nandana
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 18:38:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:46 UTC