- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:15:00 -0500
- To: <rdaniel@interwoven.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- CC: "'spec-comments'" <spec-comments@prismstandard.org>
Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com> wrote: > If this is the consensus of the RDF interest list I can > certainly take that new material back out. But please Well, I certainly can't speak for the Interest Group, but it seems to me that having a file which claims to be RDF but means one thing to an RDF processor and another to a PRISM processor seems to be a bad thing. Furthermore, I don't see why this is necessary. There is a simple RDF-compatible way to deal with this situation, and I'm not sure why you can't use it. As Roland pointed out, simply put these in an rdf:Seq and this will indicate that order should be maintained to any RDF processor. Just like this: <dc:creator> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>Contributor 1</rdf:li> <rdf:li>Contributor 2</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </dc:creator> Is there any reason why this can't be done? -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 19:15:04 UTC