- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:40:36 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote: > On Nov 9, 2012, at 2:48 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >> ISSUE-102: Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/102 >> >> >> PROPOSAL: Define the concept “well-formed list” in detail in RDF Schema, including a nice diagram. > > +1 +0.1, as I prefer the term "simple list". A circular / multi(headed/tailed) / complex multi graph list is also useful, and this shouldn't be underplayed. >> State that any use of terms from the collections vocabulary SHOULD be part of a well-formed list. > > -1. This is too strong. Subgraphs of a WFL graph need not be WFL, for example. For some purposes, all one needs to know is that some item is in the list somewhere: we should not make it illegal to have graphs saying just this. -1 also. Terms from the collections vocabulary are often used to express simple lists, I don't see why that infers a SHOULD. Shorthand in Turtle and RDF/XML already make simple lists the common case, to the point that many don't realise you can have more complex lists. Sadly no doubly-linked-lists though. Best, Nathan
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 10:41:31 UTC