- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:52:44 +0200
- To: Jesse Weaver <weavej3@rpi.edu>
- Cc: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, W3C Chairs of the RDF WG <team-rdf-chairs@w3.org>
Jesse, I understand. This request has not been raised before and it is then, indeed, is not related to the deprecation issue. I leave it to the chairs and the WG in general whether this should be raised as an issue. Ivan On Aug 29, 2011, at 21:42 , Jesse Weaver wrote: > Hi Ivan. > > Perhaps my language seemed to reflect some conflation between containers > and collections, so I wasn't very clear. I am thinking at a higher level > of just something that contains something. I don't care if it's an RDF > container or RDF collection. All I want to do is represent a group of > things (loosely defined, I have avoided the word "set" here) in RDF. It > would be nice to be able to say in a single statement: > > <group> <contains> <thing> . > > You cannot do this with RDF collections. You can do it with RDF > containers using rdfs:member. It seems that we should have some way of > doing this, regardless of whether RDF containers are deprecated. > > Jesse Weaver > Ph.D. Student, Patroon Fellow > Tetherless World Constellation > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute > http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~weavej3/ > ==============Original message text=============== > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 8:09:22 EDT Ivan Herman wrote: > > Jesse, > > - There is no formal resolution on containers yet. There has been some > discussions, and deprecating containers has indeed been raised as one of > the candidates. > > - However, your usage of rdfs:member v.a.v. lists (a.k.a. collections) is > a slightly different question. At them moment, there is no semantic > relationships in RDFS between the terms used for lists (rdf:first, > rdf:next, or rdf:List) and rdfs:member. Put it another way if I have > > <a> <b> (<c> <d> <e>) . > > I cannot infer something like > > <c> rdfs:member _:a . # _:a is the 'head' of the list above. > > I may have misunderstood what you said, though. > > Ivan > > > > > On Aug 26, 2011, at 20:59 , Jesse Weaver wrote: > >> Hello RDF working group. >> >> Has there been consensus concerning deprecation of RDF containers in 1.1? >> Specifically, I am curious about the rdfs:member property. It is very >> useful for stating membership of something in a uniform way (unlike using >> rdf:_1, rdf:_2, ...) and in a single triple (unlike using rdf:first and >> rdf:rest). I am well aware of the distinction between containers and >> collections, but it seems that RDF really needs something as simple as >> rdfs:member. >> >> Please let me know. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Jesse Weaver >> Ph.D. Student, Patroon Fellow >> Tetherless World Constellation >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute >> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~weavej3/> >> >> >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.htmlFOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > > ===========End of original message text=========== > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 06:53:06 UTC