Re: "Microsoft Access" for RDF?

Sorry, now I forgot my strawman! Too late on a Friday..

So say the user of an triple-order-preserving UI says:

<document> prov:wasAttributedTo :alice, :charlie, :bob.

.. And consider the order important because Bob didn't contribute as much
to the document as Alice and Charlie.

In that case the above statements is not detailed enough and some new
property or resource is needed to represent this distinction in RDF.

Here I would think OWL fear combined with desire to reuse existing
vocabularies mean that you don't get specific enough. Its OK to state the
same relation with two different properties, and even better to make a new
sub property that explains the combination.

In the strawman, using more specific properties like pav:authoredBy and
prov:wasInfluencedBy would clarify the distinction much more than an
ordered list with an unspecified order criteria.

In other cases the property is really giving a shortcut, say;

<meeting> :attendedBy :john, :alice, :charlie .

..And the user is also encoding arrival time at the meeting by the list
order.

But this is using :attendesBy to describe both who were there, and when
they arrived. In this case, the event of arriving could better be modelled
separately with a partial ordering.

If you don't like double housekeeping (most programmers know the pitfalls
here), then using OWL or inference rules  you can also infer attendance
from the arrival events.