- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:24:52 -0000
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>, "Nadia Heninger" <nadia@barbwired.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
> If I want to assert a handful of things at once can't I use > bags to do it? I guess it depends upon how you'd construct such a thing, but I think in general, no:- [[[ When using a list, be aware that it is exhaustive For example, if you say that you have a brother called Jon, and a brother called Paul, people cannot test whether you have an extra brother or not. If, on the other hand, you make a list (cf. lists in DAML) out of your brothers, then that list is exhaustive: people can infer that if a person is not in that list, then it is not one of your brothers. q.v. Dan Connolly's discussion of this http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-09-05.html#T04-23-27 on #rdfig. ]]] - http://infomesh.net/2001/08/swtips/ Using a bag is more work (generates more triples) that just using the properties as normal, and should only be used when you want to make an exhaustive list, or you need to refer to a set of something. Since in the general case we don't want to do either, it's probably a good idea to avoid bags. OTOH, perhaps you had something else in mind, or I'm missing the point? This question (bags vs. properties) comes up quite a lot on the RDF lists. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://purl.org/net/swn#> . :Sean :homepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 20:26:02 UTC