- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:51:07 +0200
- 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... Dan
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 14:51:35 UTC