RE: Confusion about Collections

>
> > The concept of Collections is introduced in this set of
> documents, but the
> > coverage of same across the docs seems to be incomplete. For instance,
> > rdf:nil is discussed in the Vocabulary document and in
> Semantics, but its
> > only reference in the model syntax is the change item.
> Syntactically, how
> > does rdf:nil work?
> >
> > In the primer, the word 'collection' is used for describing the
> collection
> > of attributes (properties) for a resource. This will cause confusion for
> > those who read about Collections, and then see collections.
> Semantically,
> > according to the documents, the two are not the same (sorry,
> Pat, couldn't
> > resist).
>
> Actually, if they read front-to-back, they'll see collections, and then
> read about Collections.  However, I take your point (Collections were
> added after most of that earlier stuff was written, and you run out of
> synonyms after a while).  How does "group" strike you for the generic
> term (can't use "set";  can't use "Bag")?
>

I think that the use of 'group' would be good.

> >
> > I would strongly recommend that the Primer author consider using another
> > term, and also add additional material about Collections. I would also
> > recommend additional coverage of Collection within the Syntax
> document to
> > bring it more closely inline with the coverage of same in
> Semantics and in
> > Vocabulary.
>
> I'll fix the terminology.  As it happens, I'm working on the Collections
> material right now.  What additional material about Collections would
> you suggest?
>
> --Frank
>

What is the difference between containers and collection? How does rdf:nil
et al fit in with parseType="Collection"? One assumes that we can list a
grouping of complete rdf:description blocks one after another when using
parseType="Collection", not just use rdf:resource and point to the resource
later. Examples?

Also, Frank, a question on dates: I've seen references to multiple documents
about what date types are supported. I imagine that we can use RDFS to
provide instructions to consumers of our vocabulary as to which date format
is being supported. Or do we use rdf:datatype? There's quite a bit of
discussion on data types, but it seems disjointed. I can't help thinking
that the primer could bring this together.

Also question: you all aren't really going to support values of
'"1999-08-16"^^xsd:date', are you? No offense, but this horrid. No offense
again, but this is absolutely horrid. What's wrong with using RDFS to define
the data type, rather than making the value into an intelligent value (ie
data type is incorporated into the instance, rather than the vocabulary
definition)? Embedding intelligence into values is the worst thing you can
do for a data model, regardless of model meta-structure.

This is a broader question to group, or a request clarification if I'm
reading this wrong. I'm hoping I'm reading this wrong.

Shelley

Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 11:57:10 UTC