- From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:45:04 +0600
- To: "Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "www-rdf-interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
<- > IANAL, but don't we still need to be able to tell the <- difference between <- > e.g. {1, 2, 3, 4} and {1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3}? <- <- What difference? They're both representations of the same set. Set? <- > There is definitely elegance to LISP-style lists, though <- personally I can't <- > judge how appropriate they would be in this context - the RDF model is <- > pretty much object-orientated (maybe transformed a little) - <- how well does <- > the mix of lists & objects work in e.g. CLOS? <- <- I was initially taken with this construct (I think pretty much everybody <- has invented this as a notion as some point) but I'm less inclined to <- like it now. Why? Weeeell, why not use something slicker, like balanced <- trees? Or any other data structure of your choice? <- <- I prefer the abstraction of just using numbered members. An RDF <- implementation is free to use whatever datastructure it pleases behind <- the scenes*; given a little API support, there need be no O(n) cost for <- fetching the _n_th sequence member, etc. hmm - matter of taste there, I guess. Personally I'd love it if a mapping of the Java Collections framework appeared in there overnight... On a related point, without a view either way - is it wise to have the basic list-kind-of-thang with these kind of features? (i.e. ordered, dupes allowed) or do it more axiomatically (if you get my drift)
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 09:48:39 UTC