- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:19:30 -0500
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> A few days ago, Kampman made an important remark about named graph > semantics but i havent seen any reply, did i miss some? [answered separately] > Also, i also would like to argue for the support for containers. > For a very interesting use case (that i cant possibly solve without > query language support) see . > > http://giovanni.ea.unian.it/temp/rdftef.pdf I can't seem to get there. > Textual encoding using RDF (requiring chains of words/symbols) > > the fact that there is no knowledge on how to implement this > efficiently shouldnt probably be an issue? i guess they'll be > inefficient at first, but at least people can use them if needed. You're not the first to write about collections/containers. It's been on the WG issues list since last September... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#accessingCollections but we're not planning to address it in this version [[ RESOLVED: to postpone accessingCollections because * our not standardizing it doesn't stop anybody from playing * none of the extant designs seems sufficiently mature Clark/UMD, Fukushige/MEI, and 2 others abstaining ]] If you have information the WG hasn't considered, please let us know. As I say, I can't get to the rdftef thing. Maybe I'll try again another day. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 15 April 2005 01:19:31 UTC