- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:42:11 +0100
- To: Frangois Leygues <francoisleygues@yahoo.com>
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>>>Frangois Leygues said: > > 1) This is still an RDF issue: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-constraining-containers No it isn't, but the issue resolution hasn't been updated. It was decided in the 2002-05-31 meeting: "(1) agreed to create a daml:collection like structure in RDF" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0159.html Basically, the RDF Core WG has added to RDF/XML support for closed collections in the way that DAML's collection did it - with rdf:parseType="Collection", rdf:first, rdf:next, rdf:nil and rdf:List. This does not replace any existing container (rdf:Seq, rdf:Bag, rdf:Alt) mechanism but provides a way to express a closed container of items. It is up to the application how these are used. > 2) However, DAML solve that in some way. The problem > is that RDF containers seems deprecated now. No they are not, see above. > 3) It is also possible to subclass Containers and to > define some non standard convention... Of course, you are always free to do that but the above should help interop. > 4) It would be nice if a global status about this > question was presented here... It should be recorded in due course, and in the next round of working drafts. Sorry this isn't so clear. Dave speaking personally, not for the WG
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2002 09:43:11 UTC