- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:56:23 +0000
- To: <jimbobbs@hotmail.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I tend to use the collection syntax, because they're "closed" and the intended semantics hold up better in the face of arbitrary nbew statements being added to the graph. Otherwise, I tend to use repeated properties (but that gives a set-like semantics). As for the vocabulary, we're really stuck with that. The cost of changing at this stage would be quite considerable, for little real benefit. #g -- At 00:20 10/11/03 -0500, Jimmy wrote: >What has everyone found to be the most common type of collection or >container used in real-world RDF documents? I've mainly used rdf:Seq or >rdf:Bag. I understand the use for rdf:Alt, but I really haven't seen much >use of collection graphs. I'm interested to hear about other experiences. > >As an aside, one thing that annoys me about the revised RDF/XML syntax is >the inconsistent use of abbreviations. A sequence element is "Seq", while a >description element is spelled out. Items in a container use the HTML name, >"li", which doesn't really mean "list item" anymore; I'd rather call the >element "item". I know this is a nitpick, but how about some consistency in >naming things? > > >-- >Jimmy Cerra > >] "A good decision is based on knowledge >] and not on numbers" - Plato ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 05:15:09 UTC