Re: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

2010/1/15 Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>:
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>>
>> I don't disagree, though the theory seems neater than containers, in
>> practice they do seem really clunky. Any thoughts on what might be a
>> better paradigm? Anything perhaps lightly layered on top of the
>> container style?
>>
>
> How about s p o?
> e.g. for a container with 3 things
>
> s p o1
> s p o2
> s p o3
>
> i.e. the extra layer for the container is unnecessary and can just be
> omitted.


We have that container already?
But how do we know the order?

> I think the attractiveness of RDF is minimalism and quietly deprecating
> containers without any explicit replacement is quite doable.

Minimalism should be the touchstone, absolutely.

pip,
Danny.