Re: defining the semantics of lists

• From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
• Date: Sun, 17 May 2020 14:02:42 -0400
• To: semantic-web@w3.org
• Message-ID: <ba2e4e38-324c-8a3e-3c57-9c692179ecea@dbooth.org>

On 5/17/20 5:40 AM, thomas lörtsch wrote:
 > I'd like lists to be integrated into RDF first class because they are 
 > such an important and ubiquitous datastructure.
+1

And we should call them "arrays", not "lists", as in most other data 
representations.  We got in the habit of calling them lists in RDF 
because historically they were represented as linked lists.  But there 
is no need for continuing that historical glitch if we add arrays as 
first-class objects in RDF.

Piecing them together as sets of triples using logic is really trying to 
use the wrong tool for the job.  They need to be first-class syntactic 
objects, so if one is malformed it is a syntax error -- not a logic problem.

David Booth

Received on Sunday, 17 May 2020 18:02:56 UTC