- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 13:28:32 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On 8 April 2011 11:23, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > On 8 Apr 2011, at 10:05, Steve Harris wrote: >>> rdf:Seq does have some merit, and some serious 'in the wild' usage. >> >> Agreed. While far from perfect, in some situations it's preferable to RDF Lists. > > Can you give examples where rdf:Seq is preferable to rdf:List? :_1 when the Seq numbers shadow some real world assignment eg room numbers, and each description only mentions a few :_2 when each triple costs, eg. on pay as you go bandwidth (eg mobile web in india people are), or huge datasets :_3 in Rdfa where the list structure has no sugar syntax ( does 1.1?) :_4 (maybe? unenthusiastically?) when dealing with legacy code that has special support for Seq, eg. old Mozilla XUL stuff cheers, Dan
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 11:29:00 UTC