On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:43 AM, 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. > Same here, but I think that maybe it's because we're storing OWL ontologies in an RDF database, and OWL makes such heavy use of the RDF list syntax. If OWL had decided to use Seqs instead of Lists, I'm sure I'd have a lot of bile directed at Seqs. As it stands, they're just not encountered all that often in our application. -Alex > > - 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 14:52:57 UTC