- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:20:20 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
We are talking about rdf:Alt here: At 16:23 13/02/2002 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >>At 09:38 11/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: >>[...] >>>Oh well, sure, if we ignore the semantics then we can do anything. The >>>problem with Alt is that if you follow the, er, hint, then your >>>conclusions actually *contradict* valid RDF conclusions, ie in this >>>sense Alt is nonmonotonic. >> >>Are you suggesting that we pull it entirely? > >Yes. > >>That will break anything that's used it. > >Right. Well, it will make it nonconformant, at any rate. > >>Saying its meaningless, is wimpier, but safer. > >Well, its not clear that it is safer in the long run. After all, the >actual CODE will still work, right? But we will be clear that it isn't >conformant. Lack of that clarity is itself dangerous, I would suggest. It seems clear to me. Experiemental explanatory text: [[ A resource of type rdf:Alt is an ordered collection. A collection may be given the type rdf:Alt, as opposed to rdf:Bag or rdf:Seq, as a hint to the reader that typical processing by an application will be to select one member of the collection for processing. For example, a schema designer might use rdf:Alt to represent the collection of mirror sites from which a file may be downloaded. In all respects, other than this hint, a resource of type rdf:Alt is just like an rdf:Seq. ]] Brian
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 10:22:05 UTC