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

Re: ACTION-43 Draft use case for ordering

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:21:07 +0000
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5864C52D-47A1-47AA-93EE-F44692CD6219@cyganiak.de>
To: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
On 25 Mar 2013, at 18:55, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>> The downsides of the rdf:List approach are that rdf:Lists are a bit icky to work with in some RDF toolkits. It's also a bit more verbose as the example shows.
> Just clarify, does this mean that if I have a container with large number of items, in the  rdf:List approach you mentioned, do I need to have a rdf:List containing all of them to specify the order ?

Yes, in my proposal, if you want to have a large container *and* want to specify its order, you'd have a long rdf:List list containing all members.

> Is that what you meant by *verbose* ?


For a container of n items, specifying the order in this way takes approximately 2*n triples, as opposed to the 1 triple needed in the ldp:orderProperty approach. This is a clear downside, but worth it in my eyes.

Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 19:21:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:38 UTC