- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:37:03 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 17 October 2011 16:06, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > 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. I agree (although the "Incubator Group" mechanism with W3C has evolved into "Community Group"; there will be no more XGs) - see http://www.w3.org/community/ What I take away from this thread is a mild but heart-warming sense of vindication. I said ordered stuff in RDF would always be annoying, and the thread I think establishes that it is at least currently quite annoying (the Collections, the Containers, other tricks...) and with no clear answers yet. But there is more energy and creativity towards improving the situation than I was forseeing, so maybe my initial evaluation of 'it'll always be annoying' was too bleak. A W3C Community Group does seem the right kind of instrument for collaborations around improving things... Dan
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 14:37:40 UTC