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: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:51:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+YGCkWen0Su2T7ChauOwjugivLt1LX0dvbsyYY+PekPXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 19 October 2011 16:43, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> 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.

I dunno. If you count everyone deploying RDFa, there are a lot of
'desperate perl hacker' esque people. Both Seq and lists/collections
are frustrating. It depends what you're doing, how big your data is,
etc. Since everyone hopes RDF / SW will find a broader audience, it's
worth bearing the non-logic-geeks in mind, even if they're in a
minority when you look at SemWeb conference attendence figures or
journal publications...

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 14:51:35 UTC

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