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: Ian Davis <id@talis.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:31:30 +0000
Cc: "Ivan Herman , Sandro Hawke , Steve Harris , RDF Working Group WG" <ivan@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4462714928114163161@unknownmsgid>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On 15 Oct 2011, at 11:12, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> On 15 October 2011 11:01, Ian Davis <id@talis.com> 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

> Dan


Received on Sunday, 16 October 2011 15:37:52 UTC

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