W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2011

Re: ISSUE-77: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:15:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+YJzjssn6_iJ1C5JBtSL0PZZrtWNfAG-GhsveayFg=71Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 14 October 2011 11:56, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> Not only that, it's actually useful.
> There's only two (common) syntactic ways of expressing sequences/arrays/vectors, rdf:Seq and RDF Collections.
> Both are pretty cumbersome, ugly, and arguably "broken" from some perspective, but as we don't have a valid replacement I don't think we should remove either one at the moment.

Yup, sorry I forgot XMP briefly; but yes that + RSS1 are significant,
even if "old fashioned". XMP in particular is very hard to update
because the files are all out there in the wild. I'm not sure we gain
much by making some of our biggest and earliest backers look retro.

Doing ordering in a binary relationship structure like RDF, especially
with all the open-worldism and data mixing, is always going to be a
challenge. We'd do better issueing friendly guidelines and examples
and tutorials, than issuing grand proclamations about how people's
REC-following data is broken / obsolete.


Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 11:15:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:09 UTC