Re: Dispositions of Dave Beckett's comments

Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com> wrote:

> If this is the consensus of the RDF interest list I can
> certainly take that new material back out. But please

Well, I certainly can't speak for the Interest Group, but it seems to me
that having a file which claims to be RDF but means one thing to an RDF
processor and another to a PRISM processor seems to be a bad thing.

Furthermore, I don't see why this is necessary. There is a simple
RDF-compatible way to deal with this situation, and I'm not sure why you
can't use it. As Roland pointed out, simply put these in an rdf:Seq and this
will indicate that order should be maintained to any RDF processor. Just
like this:

<dc:creator>
  <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>Contributor 1</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>Contributor 2</rdf:li>
  </rdf:Seq>
</dc:creator>

Is there any reason why this can't be done?

-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]