W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: addressing requirements around daml:collection (rdfms-seq-representation)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:56:58 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101502b8e67718c2e0@[]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>I picked up the ball on this 28 Mar:
>"Volunteers: DanC, Lynn Stein (some timing issues need to be resolved),
>De Roo,
>Will participate in RDF core working group discussion."
>I got some inspiration from today's RDF Core telcon
>(and in discussion that followed after the formal
>telcon was adjourned).
>In case Lynn finds time to participate, I'm also summarizing
>the history here. (Brian, maybe you could link this
>message or some of the stuff I cite here from the
>rdfms-seq-representation issue)

<giant snip>

>Appendix: some stuff I found while researching
>this message. I thought I'd cite them in
>the message, but they didn't turn out to be
>directly relevant. But rather than throwing
>them away, I think I'll append them.

Well, there is a relevance here in that what I say in the following 
message is pretty much what I was going to put into the next draft of 
the MT, and I was assuming that it was kind of broadly accepted. If 
it isn't, and if this vision of RDF containers isn't close to being 
right, then I don't know how to put them into the MT. Which is fine, 
but not if we expect to get a final draft of a complete MT by next 
week, as I promised on the telecon today. I need a non-moving target, 

>Entailment and bags (was:Re: Agenda items for the f2f)
>From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
>Date: Mon, Feb 04 2002
>a theory of rdf:Bags
>From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
>Date: Sun, Feb 17 2002
>hm... what ever became of "ACTION: 2002-02-15#4 PatH: Send a few
>paragraphs to the list to address this" --
>that action isn't mentioned in the next week's minutes.

God, I HATE looking through old minutes. Hmmm, I had totally 
forgotten that, I confess. And at this date I have no idea what I was 
going to say about it. I think it was just going to be a kind of 
elementary observation that there is no natural way to define 'rest' 
in an ordinal representation without doing arithmetic.  Nothing deep, 
Im sure.


PS in that same minutes I found this, BTW. So why are we still 
talking about it??

19: Issue rdf-containers-otherapproaches
The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various
awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design?


   o   the WG resolves this issue is out of scope for this WG
       but places the issue on the list of to be considered by a
       future WG.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 19 April 2002 21:57:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:12 UTC