- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:09:12 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 10:41:44 +0000, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote: > > At this stage of the game, if we choose to make any substantive changes in > response to these comments I think they should be simple excisions. > > I could see removing the preference for the first Alt as an excision. Or > simply removing Alt all together? There's nothing special about rdf:Alt > that users couldn't define their own vocabulary for it. (Personally, I > think Alt is rather like the human appendix: of little practical value and > a potential source of inflammation.) We already decided not to change RDF containers, I don't see any point doing that further now - it is not a critical change. RDF Semantics says on Alt: "things of type rdf:Alt are considered to represent a collection of alternatives, possibly with a preference ordering" -- 3.2.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Containers RDF Concepts & AS WD says nothing. RDF/XML WD deals with the syntax use only. RDF Primer does mention the prefered value rdf:_1 "An Alt container is intended to have at least one member, identified by the property rdf:_1. This member is intended to be considered as the default or preferred value. Other than the member identified as rdf:_1, the order of the remaining elements is not significant." -- just after http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#example15 Maybe there is some work to make these a little more aligned. Dave
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 06:10:15 UTC