W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Dispositions of Dave Beckett's comments

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:15:00 -0500
To: <rdaniel@interwoven.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
CC: "'spec-comments'" <spec-comments@prismstandard.org>
Message-ID: <B6EE6413.8315%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
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 ]
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 19:15:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT