W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: "Simple Lists" (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24))

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:06:22 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <4D6AAA56-E00A-4562-92F6-794A780E5068@cyganiak.de>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 17 Oct 2011, at 11:47, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> I think the only complete solution will involve putting structural
>>> literals into RDF itself, so they are not triple-encoded and can't be
>>> 'bad'.  When treated as first-class literals with equality rules,
>>> accessors, and combining rules, then implementations can store them
>>> specially, provide good APIs, and application programmer won't have to
>>> learn about the encoding rules.
>> That sounds pretty hard.  Do you have some design in mind...?
> RDF 2.  Not this WG.
> Add "list" to  IRI,BNode and literal
> Or subtype of literal but as it has it's own syntax etc it feels different.
> IF this is to advance, I think it needs serious scoping and investigation with all the stakeholders involved.  RDF-WG isn't that place either by our current timeline, nor by the constituency of people involved.
> An XG perhaps?
> You could add into the change mix adding graph literals to RDF 2+

+1 to setting up an XG to look into list literals, graph literals and similar.

RDF-WG should standardize what's already used and shown to work. A focused XG is a good place for doing some research and developing proposals for RDF2.

Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 14:07:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC