Re: Poll of the WG on list management (ISSUE-106)

Same here, +1 from me. (Since it's needed for e.g. OWL constructs like
owl:unionOf.)

Best regards,
Niklas


On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote:
> +1, I've wanted a way to represent ordered relationships for some time.
>
> Gregg Kellogg
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 10, 2011, at 12:52 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> ISSUE-106 is on whether we would add some sort of a list management to RDFa, ie, whether there would be some syntax to generate, in RDF terms, rdf:List structures. In terms of Turtle (which has a nice surface syntax for this) we would like to be able to generate something like
>>
>> <blasubject> <blapredicate> ( "one list element" <twolistelement> ) .
>>
>> We had a discussion on this on our last Telco[1]. This was preceded by an email discussion which lead to a possible design by Gregg[2]. That design shows that it is possible to add this to RDFa with a relatively minimal change to the processing rules. The design is sound, in the sense that it has already been implemented by two independent implementation.
>>
>> Although [2] may not be the final design (see separate mails on that), it proves that it is _possible_ to do it. Hence, we have to decide whether we do it or not.
>>
>> On the meeting we had a straw poll and everybody on the call (ie, Gregg, Ivan, Steven, Ted, Niklas, Stéphane) agreed _in principle_ to add this. ("In principle" because we still have to decide whether [2] is the solution, or a modification thereof.) However, we did not feel we had the necessary number of people to make a formal decision. It was decided to make this, if possible, by email. So:
>>
>> PROPOSAL: The WG agrees to add a syntax and processing rules to RDFa 1.1 whereby RDF lists could be generated.
>>
>> Can we try to get this poll through email? We could then formally put it into the minutes next Thursday and close the ISSUE one way or other.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> P.S. Note that this is a partial reopening of ISSUE-16[3]. Partial, because ISSUE-16 tried to cover both RDF collections and containers, whereas ISSUE-106 does not add anything to containers (and that greatly simplifies the design). The new feature request that raised this issue again is related to the improvement on the relationships with microdata.
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-09-08#Issue_106
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/Lists#Processing_Rules_addition_with_.40member_alternative
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/16
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Saturday, 10 September 2011 20:57:54 UTC