- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:12:36 +0200
- To: Ian Davis <id@talis.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <BD5AC8EE-B773-457A-8628-00746C02E4CB@w3.org>
On Oct 15, 2011, at 12:01 , Ian Davis wrote: > FWIW I find the term archaic slightly derogatory. > > That was my feeling, too. So, pushing the corpse into your courtyard:-): what would be a good English term for what we want, without being derogatory? Ivan > > On 15 Oct 2011, at 10:41, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > >> On 15 October 2011 09:32, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 15, 2011, at 05:40 , Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 14:05 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> I politely disagree. I think Turtle makes RDF Collections seem quite >>>> nice, and hopefully that will quickly set the tone (perhaps with a >>>> little help from us) for APIs and SPARQL 1.2 (?) having nice list >>>> handling functions that are as efficient as native (non-destructive) >>>> list handling functions. (I hope some APIs do this already.) >>> >>> Point taken. (Actually, at last in my view, RDFa 1.1 also adopted an additional feature whereby it is easy and natural to create lists.) But it is a bit of a problem that SPARQL 1.1 still does not cover list handling fully:-( >> >> >> SPARQL 1.2 nice list handling sounds great; but afaik is still >> vapourware. So I disagree politely with sandro's polite disagreement. >> >> Actually I will refine my position (change my mind). I said it will >> 'always be' a challenge. These technology improvements show that it >> can get incrementally a bit easier, so I should soften that. However, >> merging lists, handling partially described real world lists, etc., I >> think does bring a certain unavoidable complexity. >> >>>> Could that be done for Seq as well? I don't think so, since there's no >>>> closing of the list. So, we end up with one pretty-decent list >>>> mechanism, and one less-good one. I think the only fair thing, in that >>>> situation, is to tell people that's what we've got. And if you tell >>>> people they could use A or B, and A is better than B, that amounts to >>>> marking B as an Archaism. >>> >>> Ok. I guess my problem is more a matter of wording, of public image. But if I try to put myself into the shoes of an Adobe representative who sells XMP to the world, I do not think I would like to announce a functionality that is labelled as 'archaic' by an international standard. That would not look very well, would it? Ie, it may be a matter of choosing another expression (do not ask me which one, my English is too poor for that...). >> >> >> Funny, I found 'archaic' gentler than 'deprecate' because the latter >> suggests to me that, through inaction, things could at some point soon >> stop working or cause errors or be 'removed' from the >> language/standard. Whereas archaic just says (to me), "ok, it's a bit >> old and we might have better ways of doing it now.". So yes the >> 'better' can look bad in PR terms; but the 'this might get removed' >> looks bad in business and engineering terms re costs and disruption. >> Either way, it's probably better to talk to them than try to guess, >> even for native speakers... >> >> 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 10:11:22 UTC