On 15 Oct 2011, at 12:30, Ian Davis <id@talis.com> wrote: > 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 > technology. > Yes, I never initially anticipated it being used for core technology constructs - and definitely not non-vocab pieces like parser bahaviour. Seq is very infrastructural but also 'just vocab', so is a bit awkward. Personally I would btw argue that rdf:Statement is rather archaic, but I accept the above argument as a good reason for W3C not to proclaim this. Dan > > >> >> Dan > > Ian
Received on Sunday, 16 October 2011 15:38:09 UTC