W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: proposals for Lists and Seq (ISSUE-77)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:58:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+bm-TX2LYB=KT6cyzOE691kJ3X-FQnzka2hyZvvu-3P6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 20 October 2011 14:47, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 13:21 +0200, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> On 20 October 2011 13:13, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
>> > I wouldn't be comfortable with marking Seq as "archaic" or similar unless there's a viable alternative, and I don't think List counts.
>> Me neither.  Nor "quaint", "twee", "retro" or "regrettable". It's just
>> what it is, with no great mystery or confusion.
> Actually, there's a great deal of confusion.  Please do explain -- in
> one sentence for newbies -- why we have both Seq and List, and with Seq
> better supported in RDF/XML and List better supported in Turtle, and how
> someone should decide which to use.

Sure - good idea.

"The first RDF/XML specifications used a class rdf:Seq with numbered
relationships to describe ordered lists; however when the later OWL WG
were arm-twisted by W3C staff into using RDF as the syntax to define
their language, they persuaded the RDF Core group (and others, e.g.
N3/Turtle) to adopt a new list mechanism that used a linked list style
that made it easier to tell when a list description was incomplete, at
the cost of extra triples."

> (To put it differently, I think it's quite harmful to the RDF to not deprecate Seq.)

I guess you're not paying by the triple for storage?


Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 12:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC