W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: proposals for Lists and Seq (ISSUE-77)

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:13:35 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4EAB3E7D-A90D-40F2-B2A3-3F20D71564E6@garlik.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
I wouldn't be comfortable with marking Seq as "archaic" or similar unless there's a viable alternative, and I don't think List counts.

- Steve

On 2011-10-20, at 08:55, Ivan Herman wrote:

> I am ok with prop. 2 on labeling seq to something like archaic but using another term. Note, however, that XMP uses Alt, too, not only Seq, ie, the same treatment should be applied to all containers...
> 
> Ivan
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman
> web: http://www.ivan-herman.net
> mobile: +31 64 1044 153
> 
> On 19 Oct 2011, at 23:20, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> In today's telecon, we seemed to have a rough consensus on how to
>> proceed with Seq and List, but still needed to hammer out some wording
>> of proposals.    I've created a wiki page with proposals on four
>> different bits of this.   Please feel free to improve the background
>> text and the proposals.  If you want to significantly change the
>> proposal (instead of just improving the wording), then please add a
>> different proposal next to the existing one(s).
>> 
>> On the last one (whether or not to actually mark Seq as archaic), I'm
>> not hearing anyone ready to formally object to either option, so I'm
>> thinking a preference vote might be in order.   
>> 
>> The page: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Ordered
>> 
>>   -- Sandro
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 11:14:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT