RE: Confusion about Collections

> 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 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?


Clarification on this, Frank: there is a strong mapping between the RDF/XML
of the Container and the generated graph, but almost no mapping at all
between the Collection RDF/XML and the generated graph. One could say that
the Collection is the ultimate RDF shortcut. This is going to cause
confusion, particularly as people try and figure how to programmatically
access a 'Collection'. (N-Triples of the graph might help with that.)

Wouldn't be a good idea to show the 'long form' of the Collection, as
tedious as it is, in addition to the short form? With this, then people can
see for themselves the mapping. They'll be able to take the steps that get
them from Point A to Point B.

This isn't necessary for experienced RDF/XML people, but I think is
essential to newbies.

Shelley

Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 13:23:32 UTC