- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:42:18 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 13:32 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >>>>> (1) try to model without using either one, when feasible >> >> which I took as also pushing RDF lists into the "not preferred >> category". That's seems to be letting the technology influence the >> modelling too much. >> >> The fact that an ordering construct is an RDF list which "has issues" >> isn't the fault of the modeller. > > Right... What I was trying to get at here was the advice I often hear > that modelers should not be using this kind of construct at all. Who is giving that advice? And what reasons do they give? OWL uses the vocabulary, so I dont think we should be giving advice which suggests that OWL/RDF is broken or deprecated. > > Honestly, I'm very confused about this bit. Perhaps it's best addressed > by having a little bit in the tutorial showing how something can be > modeled with lists or without lists, and explaining the tradeoffs. Im not aware of how to model something that needs lists without using lists. Can you give more details? Pat > > -- Sandro > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 19:42:59 UTC