Re: "Simple Lists" (was Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24))

Re this, Im always surprised when people trash-talk the collections vocabulary, when it has essentially no semantics whatever. Users can invent their own IRIs for linked-list data structures and deploy them with almost exactly the same degree of built-in meaning that the the rdf collections vocabulary has, viz., none. If you want, say, things like Sexpressions but with three fields instead of two, or two distinct terminators nil1 and nil2, or whatever, then just go ahead. In retrospect it is a pity that OWL used the RDF vocabulary for OWL syntax rather than providing its own, but the workaround is easy. 


On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Alex Hall wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Steve Harris <> 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
> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 19:29:58 UTC