RE: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Michael Schneider wrote:
>> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>>> I think the attractiveness of RDF is minimalism and quietly
>>> containers without any explicit replacement is quite doable.
>> What would "quietly deprecating" mean?
>The bits of RDF I don't like :) could be marked as deprecated.
>The documentation of RDF would discourage their use in new ontologies
>and schemas, but existing systems would continue to use them.
>i.e. we would have explicit agreement in the community that there are
>better ways to achieve the same effects, but pragmatically a realization
>that would is done, is done.

Ok, so this sounds to me just like vanilla deprecation, I don't see anything
going on "quietly" here. 

I just asked, because I remembered having seen this term "quiet deprecation"
more than once being used in this thread, and I wondered whether there is
something important that I have missed.


Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
WWW  :

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus

Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 17:20:42 UTC