- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:40:39 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 14:05 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote: > On Oct 14, 2011, at 13:15 , Dan Brickley wrote: > > > On 14 October 2011 11:56, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote: > >> Not only that, it's actually useful. > >> > >> There's only two (common) syntactic ways of expressing sequences/arrays/vectors, rdf:Seq and RDF Collections. > >> > >> Both are pretty cumbersome, ugly, and arguably "broken" from some perspective, but as we don't have a valid replacement I don't think we should remove either one at the moment. > > > > > > Yup, sorry I forgot XMP briefly; but yes that + RSS1 are significant, > > even if "old fashioned". XMP in particular is very hard to update > > because the files are all out there in the wild. I'm not sure we gain > > much by making some of our biggest and earliest backers look retro. > > > > Doing ordering in a binary relationship structure like RDF, especially > > with all the open-worldism and data mixing, is always going to be a > > challenge. We'd do better issueing friendly guidelines and examples > > and tutorials, than issuing grand proclamations about how people's > > REC-following data is broken / obsolete. > > +1 I politely disagree. I think Turtle makes RDF Collections seem quite nice, and hopefully that will quickly set the tone (perhaps with a little help from us) for APIs and SPARQL 1.2 (?) having nice list handling functions that are as efficient as native (non-destructive) list handling functions. (I hope some APIs do this already.) Could that be done for Seq as well? I don't think so, since there's no closing of the list. So, we end up with one pretty-decent list mechanism, and one less-good one. I think the only fair thing, in that situation, is to tell people that's what we've got. And if you tell people they could use A or B, and A is better than B, that amounts to marking B as an Archaism. -- Sandro
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 03:40:51 UTC