Re: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0") from Danny Ayers on 2010-01-15 (semantic-web@w3.org from January 2010)

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:20:33 +0100
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd1001150920p6ef92a0bp458dbde2cc74eb5f@mail.gmail.com>

2010/1/15 Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>:
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>>I think the attractiveness of RDF is minimalism and quietly deprecating
>>containers without any explicit replacement is quite doable.
>
> What would "quietly deprecating" mean?

If I was the God of W3C, I'd shunt such material down to the bottom of
the page, or better still an appendix.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but containers are so feeble that you could
say the same as the spec says in an arbitrary namespace -

x:Bag rdfs:comment "yet another blank node" .

Documentation issue I reckon, get best known practices in first.

Cheers,
Danny.

Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 17:21:06 UTC