- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:14:24 -0500
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dave Beckett wrote: >>>>pat hayes said: >>>> snip >> >>Terminology question: now we have lists, should the term 'container' >>be understood to include lists as well as seqs, bags and alts? If so, >>does anyone have an suggestion for a generic term for the older >>containers? (Simple containers? Open containers? Bushy containers?) >> >>------ >> > > I'm sure we are going to get people confused with collections and > containers. Since we decided not to create a new way to do seqs, > bags, alts (ha ha!), we should try to be as distinctive as possible. > > I think the new things should have the longer name. I've been using > closed collections but that doesn't seem to have grabbed people much. > The problem with "closed collections" is it's not obvious to me how they can be "closed", given the lack of semantics of the properties involved. Presumably RDF/XML will generate the well-structured lists we imagine this is for, but it seems to me people can write all sorts of weird stuff using rdf:first, rdf:rest, and so on, and (e.g.) add those properties to things that started off as those well-structured lists. This is why I don't talk about the presumed "closed" aspects of these collections in the Primer. --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 07:58:14 UTC