- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:37:37 -0800
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- CC: Damien Morton <Morton@dennisinter.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3c.org
Graham Klyne wrote: > Personally, I tend to agree with you, but the RDF M&S currently uses > rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc. > > However, the RDF M&S does not (cannot?) prevent one defining a different > structure for describing ordered collections -- such as "link list" as you > suggest (but beware: the "links" here are illusory --- don't think of them > like C structures). But be aware that that approach too will suffer from a > requirement for re-writing if you wish to insert a new element (though not > as many rewrites as the numbered property approach). Strangely enough this nasty problem could be fixed, if the RDF data model allowed for real numbers in rdf:_x. But in any case, I stand with you calling for the allowance of collecting statements apart from bags via explicit reification: [c] ---rdfc:asserts--->[id, s, p, o] It's direct, its useful, it's efficient! Is there any dissent? Seth Russell
Received on Sunday, 3 December 2000 13:34:37 UTC