W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: (tentative) container model proposal

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:43:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: <guha@alpiri.com>
cc: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@baltimore.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106121635090.20596-100000@tux.w3.org>


On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, R.V.Guha wrote:

> Actually, no. I do mean it. It should all *completely* go away.guha

Forgetting reification for now, are you saying that we should completely
drop *all* mention of the RDF container machinery (bag/seq/alt/li and
syntactic support)? Unless you can show them to be undeployed and broken
beyond repair, this seems to me to go beyond our charter. RDFCore is a
clean-up operation not a rewrite. More importantly, dropping containers
would be somewhat over the top: the main problem with the container stuff
is the central role that M+S gives it. As a handy (if quirky) piece of
vocab it is often useful (eg. as deployed in the RSS 1.0 spec,
http://purl.org/rss/1.0/). I believe we can re-present RDF in terms of a
slimmed down formal model spec plus and syntax and  various bits of
utility vocab (schema stuff, containers etc). I don't really see what
purging containers entirely from our specs would buy us...

(forgive me if i misread your comment)


> Dan Brickley wrote:
> > > > My claim was pretty modest: just that both rdf:type and rdf:_n  constructs
> > > > are similarly privileged in RDF's XML syntax, but that neither deserve
> > > > any special architectural privilege w.r.t. the basic formalities of the
> > > > triples model. Whether we feel the one is more/less useful, intuitive etc
> > > > is a separate issue, and one that you're right to postone to future work
> > > > on syntax beautification.
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> >
> > > Amen. Stated differently, everything not in the first box
> > > in section 5 of the M&S spec should go away from the spec
> > >
> > > guha
> >
> > (that's a little stronger, but i think we basically agree...)
> > We don't want it all to go away, just to "go away" from that (central,
> > foundational) section of the spec. As DanC
> > noted last week, there are some constraints, such as that being the n-th member
> > of a container is a uniquely identifying property (ie. that each
> > rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty is a daml:FunctionalProperty ((?)),
> > which  will need to be written down somewhere in one of the WG's specs...
> >
> > danbri
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 16:43:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:01 UTC