- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:07:07 -0400
- To: Ian Davis <id@talis.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 11:30 +0100, Ian Davis 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.
For a very neutral term -- perhaps a little too neutral for my tastes --
we could use "secondary". Or "alternative". In both cases, I think
people would have to read further to get a sense of what it really
means.
It would certainly be good, as Ivan says, to get a representative from
Adobe XMP into the group to help consider this and other RDF changes.
-- Sandro
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 11:07:21 UTC