Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-16: RDF Collections

On 10/19/2010 04:49 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Again for the records: I have to point out some mistake in the
> argumentation.
> These two points contradict to one another:-(
> There is, the issue is with SPARQL 1.0 rather than with anything
> else. Collections in RDF are fine semantically (after all, they are
> Lisp lists in RDF, nothing else), but SPARQL has difficulties
> querying them (although SPARQL 1.1 will make the situation a bit
> better).
> This is, unfortunately, a very circular argument. Adding collections
> (lists) to an RDFa file is, at the moment, extremely complicated and
> ugly. So nobody uses them...
> I do not agree with the argument that this is RDF Next WG's work (and
> I do not think it will be part of the charter). Collections is well
> specified in RDF and there is no reason to come back to them right
> now.
> I accept the argument that the design I have put forward is complex,
> and that there is no consensus in the group to move forward with it
> at this point. Ie, I do not object to the conclusion of the issue,
> but I do not really think the arguments above are the right one.

Just to clarify, the list wasn't a list of arguments, they were claims
that were made during discussion. Before the list, I put:

"There were a number of claims made during the discussion of RDF

after the list I put:

"Opinions on each item above varied greatly"

The implication was that all claims weren't true or false, some of the
claims contradicted one another, and in the end, we couldn't find
consensus. Sorry if that wasn't clear, hope this clears the intent of
that list up a bit.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Saving Journalism - The PaySwarm Developer API

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 14:15:39 UTC