- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:05:48 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 12:04:29 UTC
On Oct 14, 2011, at 13:15 , Dan Brickley wrote: > 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. +1 Ivan > > cheers, > > Dan > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 12:04:29 UTC