W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Minutes of RDF-WG F2F, Day 2

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:24:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpL=-wnofAV1xexY_yqyZFps=XTKuvfb-eY-fEFKOHrkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Folks,

On 30 October 2012 10:07, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> Today's minutes, slightly cleaned up:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-30

Thanks. Sorry I couldn't make it to TPAC - new job, bad timing, so the
minutes are much appreciated.

Just reading these, I'd like to speak up in favour of keeping rdf:Seq.

rdf:List is equally annoying to use, and in some ways more fragile.

rdf:List won't get used any more enthusiastically, by virtue of
declaring its annoying rival rdf:Seq to be no-longer-supported.

If the WG is trying to alienate the XMP folks and encourage them to
re-visit their decision to use RDF, this seems a logical move.
Otherwise it's the latest in a long line of the RDF community being
its own worst enemy.

"Millions (maybe billions) of files around the world using RDF?
Awesome, let's declare the markup they use to be broken! That'll teach
them to follow W3C recommendations..."

Dan

ps. I'm in transit between employers, but will be rejoining the WG as
a Google employee in the near future. If there are substantive changes
to RDFS I welcome Arnaud's offer of editing help (well, I welcome it
anyway, thanks Arnaud!); if it's relatively small tweaks and a bit of
polish, I have the time for that. There's a rough version in Mercurial
already. We only have a couple of issues against RDFS in the tracker
so far; are there more decisions that need reflecting?
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 17:25:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT