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

On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 11:30 +0100, Ian Davis wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2011, at 11:12, Dan Brickley <> wrote:
> > On 15 October 2011 11:01, Ian Davis <> wrote:
> >> FWIW I find the term archaic slightly derogatory.
> >
> > I've used it in FOAF since it doesn't offend me as editor of FOAF
> > spec; and as for instance data publishers, I think it has about the
> > right level of unsettlingness about it. But I'm curious if it is also
> > derogatory to publishers of data that use the old-fashioned terms.
> > That wouldn't be so nice...
> I thinknits different in a formal standard. Companies don't like it
> when their competitors characterise them as relying on archaic
> technology.

For a very neutral term -- perhaps a little too neutral for my tastes --
we could use "secondary".  Or "alternative".   In both cases, I think
people would have to read further to get a sense of what it really

It would certainly be good, as Ivan says, to get a representative from
Adobe XMP into the group to help consider this and other RDF changes.

    -- Sandro

Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 11:07:21 UTC