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: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:43:26 +0100
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <A7A76753-142E-4E16-AFE1-412CE11D6EB4@garlik.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On 2011-10-17, at 15:32, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> +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 re list-literals.    Not sure about graph-literals.
> I'm not really comfortable with giving no guidance whatsoever about Seq
> and Lists.  My perception is there's general (if not unanimous)
> agreement that Lists are better than Seq,

Interesting - in my corner of the RDF world, mostly database geeks, it seems like the lists (Collections) get more bile. I think database geeks are outnumbered by logic geeks though, in the semweb world.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 14:44:04 UTC

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