- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:51:45 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: nathan@webr3.org, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
On 25/03/11 13:41, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Mar 25, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Nathan wrote: > >> Steve Harris wrote: >>> I'm also not keen on [[ ]] for RDF collections, but don't see a sensible alternative. >> >> The main alternatives are to simply not include support for either multiple values or RDF Collections. > > I dont think not supporting RDF collections is an option. There is lots of RDF out there that has a few pieces of OWL in it. OWL syntax in OWL/RDF uses RDF collections. If we don't support collections well enough to handle this, all the RDF<->JSON will break whenever it hits a piece of OWL. I think this would be a disaster, and would cause enough grief to make the JSON unusable in the wild. > > Pat I don't have any figures I'm afraid but form experience I would expect that use of RDF collections in OWL is mainly in the ontology (and even there the ordered-ness is not important) not in the data. Are JS apps going to be processing OWL ontological assertions? I would not want to rush to exclude syntax specific for RDF collections in data, but it does not have to pretty if it is rarely encountered. Andy
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 13:52:28 UTC