- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:15:13 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
At 02:02 PM 5/27/01 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote: >I would like to see another proposal to implement containers, particularly >rdf:Seq. I, and numerous others, find the current syntactic contortion of ><rdf:li> -> rdf:_1 painful. The entire treatment of containers a mess badly >in need of fixing. I'm not going to argue with that... >It turns out that lexical ordering already _has_ a place in RDF, my proposal >is an attempt to fix the current problem. ... but I don't entirely agree with this. Lexical ordering has a limited place in the XML serialization of RDF, and RDF (abstract syntax) may sometimes be called upon to represent lexical ordering of items. But I regard one of the strengths of RDF (abstract syntax) to be that the information represented is independent of lexical ordering of RDF statements. #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 28 May 2001 04:20:16 UTC