- 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