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

proposal to close ISSUE-77 (Re: [ALL} agenda telecon Oct 19)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:44:40 -0400
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1318985080.8781.18.camel@waldron>
On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 21:05 +0200, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> Maybe we should have resolved at the FTF to skip a week after all the 
> hard work at the FTF, but we didn't, so here is the agenda:
>    http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.10.19
> I suggest a short meeting, basically reviewing the FTF minutes, with 
> some reflections, plsy tackling two detailed issues.

The second of those is ISSUE-77.   To sum up the discussion on the
mailing list, I think our best chance for consensus is on this

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 with a plan to keep rdf:Seq and RDF Collections
as in 2004 (syntax, no semantics), but include non-normative text in one
or more of our documents gently steering people toward best practices,
which are (1) try to model without using either one, when feasible, and
(2) if you need to use one, use RDF Collections structured so they can
be serialized losslessly in Turtle using the "(...)" notation.

This proposal is trying to split the difference: some people (including
me) think it would be better to say something stronger (I'd like to
deprecate Seq, or at least label it merely a "compatibility feature");
some people want something weaker (like do nothing).  My sense from what
people have posted is that everyone can live with this middle ground.

   -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 00:44:48 UTC

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