- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:33:10 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Oct 19, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 19/10/11 13:17, Sandro Hawke wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 11:23 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> > >>> I don't mind how what we do to rdf:Seq but if we say "use blank nodes >>> for Seq" (which then avoids the merge issues) it is a step forward (Ian >>> -- skolemized system generated URIs would count as well) >> >> I can live with that, but I'm not sure why we'd say >> dont-use-non-blank-nodes-for-Seq any stronger than dont-use-Seq. > > It avoids merge problems as the bNodes should stop two rdf:_1's on the same resource. Huh? How does that work? I mean, how do bnodes stop this happening? >>> Having gone back to the text around RDF Collections, some tidying up and >>> bringing together would be helpful although the primer is in reasonable >>> shape already. >> >> Oh, yeah, I'd also *love* to stop using the terms "collections" and >> "containers" and just use "Seq" and "List". I know "Collection" is >> hard-coded into RDF/XML, but still. Expecting people to remember >> container=Seq and collection=List is a bit ... rude. Especially if >> we're calling g-boxes "Graph Containers", which I've already seen one of >> us mis-write as "RDF Container". > > +1 - Absolutely agree +1 also Pat > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 19:33:52 UTC