- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:24:23 +0100
- To: Ian Davis <id@talis.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 15/10/11 20:00, Ian Davis wrote: > I consider that a feature not a bug. There are times when you want to > rank things equally in a list. Its not that hard to handle in code > with nested loops. > I agree there are can be such times -- and bags are useful sometimes as well (the opposite - no order, with duplicates). rdf:Seq is not spec'ed as a rank though, only the order, [ "the numerical ordering of the container membership properties of the container is intended to be significant." ] and it says nothing about merging two graphs and dealing with Seq overlap. Best to use a blank node for the subject of the Seq. You could subclass and impose addition definitions. Are there any example of subclassing rdf:Seq? It does go against the idea of making the encoded structures nicer to use by APIs if in some places the structures have a specific meaning of the offsets. An API that presents a "Seq" may mangle them. A bag of (rank, item) pairs would presumably be better but more complicated. Andy (at least these could have been :1 :2 :3 in Turtle!)
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 19:24:55 UTC