- From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:43:45 -0700
- To: bnowack@appmosphere.com
- CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Benjamin Nowack wrote: > On 24.07.2007 11:51:56, Garret Wilson wrote: > >> name. (The same goes for v:extendedAddress.) Damn RDF! When can RDF just >> go ahead and say that an rdf:List can hold literals? This irritates me >> to no end. >> > Why don't you just use a simple rdf:Seq? I don't think "closing" is too > important in this case, and RDF containers are often easier to query than > collections, too. > rdf:Seq is "simple", eh? ;) But is that still around? Still being officially recommended? Frankly, rdf:Seq (with its rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc.) is a worse hack that rdf:List. Maybe we could create properties v:email1, v:email2, etc. Oh, wait---if we use v:preferredEmail we're essentially doing the same thing, it's just that we lose the ability to have a secondary preferred email---it's like having v:email1 without a v:email2. Oh, the hacks I have to choose among! When are we just going to fix RDF? Can I fix it? Please? Please? ;) Garret
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 13:43:51 UTC