- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:12:06 -0400
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Garret Wilson wrote: [snip] > The problems were having with single/multiple cardinality and order; > and representing literals in a list; are nothing new---they are > problems inherent in RDF. They rear their heads in very, very, simple > ontologies. And they aren't going away. That worries me greatly. I have yet to see anything resembling a substantial objection to using rdf:Seq rather than rdf:List. Does *anyone* object to rdf:Seq, which seems to be able to take literals as objects with an ordering constraint? The only objection would be the lack of closure of containers and lack of formal semantics or ordering, but given that you cannot reasonably put literals in rdf:List, I see no option other than use rdf:Seq. To me, the only question is: 1) Should we *force* users to use rdf:Seq (i.e. make it range constraint of v:additionalNames) when describing additional names, 2) Leave the range constraint out and so allow users have "unordered" additional names (and the same question for honorable prefixes and suffixes, which I imagine may have ordering constraints in some languages, and some order for them seems to be implied by the vCard RFC), but remind the users in the spec that for this property if ordering is needed, one *should* use rdf:Seq. I am leaning towards 2), since I am in general always leaning on letting users use complex things (such as rdf:Seq) as optional. > > Garret > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:12:24 UTC