- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:58:42 +0200
- 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? cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 12:59:11 UTC