Re: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

Michael Schneider wrote:
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>   
>> I think the attractiveness of RDF is minimalism and quietly deprecating
>> containers without any explicit replacement is quite doable.
>>     
>
> What would "quietly deprecating" mean?
>   

The bits of RDF I don't like :) could be marked as deprecated.
The documentation of RDF would discourage their use in new ontologies 
and schemas, but existing systems would continue to use them.
i.e. we would have explicit agreement in the community that there are 
better ways to achieve the same effects, but pragmatically a realization 
that would is done, is done.

Jeremy