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

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

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:32:24 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 02:40 PM 4/23/02 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > There isn't any such notion in RDF.
>Not yet; but I say, again:
>|So the next proposal is:
>|  * add parseType="collection" to RDF/xml;
>|  * add rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:nil too.
>|  * specify that parseType="collection"
>|  is notation for first/rest/nil triples
>|  ala daml:collection.
>By 'ala daml:collection' I meant: including
>the fact that first/rest are functional.

I'm kind-of uncomfortable with this:  it seems to be a big semantic 
addition to the nature of RDF, which I thought was going to be dealt with 
at "higher" layers.  With this, adding triples to a valid graph can force 
an inconsistency.

Now, if the first/rest triples were considered to be "dark", I might feel 
easier (though there's still this new idea that a bunch of triples can 
somehow be ill-formed).

I'm finding first/rest lists to be very useful in practice, but I'm worried 
about the possibilities for unintended consequences here, especially adding 
features so late in the WG cycle.


Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 03:37:07 UTC

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