W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Confusion about Collections

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:56:44 -0500
Message-ID: <3DE2726C.CD77116E@mitre.org>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Shelley Powers wrote:
> > 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.

I need some clarification about your clarification.  I understand what
you say about the mapping between the RDF/XML of the collection and the
generated graph (there is one;  it's described in the Syntax
specification, but reading it isn't for the faint of heart), and I'm
concocting some words to try to describe it.  However, I'm not sure I
understand what you mean by the "long form" of the Collection.  It seems
to me that the graph is the "long form" (that is, it shows the consed
list, in all its "glory"), and there's a drawn graph in the Primer.  Are
you saying that a *triples* version of that graph would be clearer, and
would help people more than the drawing (he asked in astonishment)?  If
so, do you mean in addition to or instead of the drawing?


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 13:56:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC